Verdict on Tamil Nadu Bills doesn’t cover issues raised by Kerala government against Governor: Centre to SC
The verdict granting “deemed assent” to 10 Tamil Nadu bills didn’t cover the issues raised by Kerala Government against the state Governor allegedly sitting over bills passed by the state Assembly, the Centre asserted before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
“The Tamil Nadu judgment does not cover certain issues of this (Kerala) case on facts. We would like to show those differences," Attorney General R Venkataramani told a Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
There were certain “factual differences” between the two cases, Venkataramani submitted.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Kerala Governor’s office, supported the Attorney General. “I am examining the judgment,” Mehta said, seeking time to revert.
The submissions of the two top law officers came after senior counsel KK Venugopal submitted on behalf of the Kerala Government that the judgement delivered by a Bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala in the Tamil Nadu case has framed guidelines and set timelines for governors and the President on granting assent to Bills.
“The matter is covered by the recent judgment. The issue is what is the time limit for reference to the President. That’s held to be three months based on a circular issued by the Government of India," Venugopal told the Bench.
The Bench agreed to take up on May 6 the Kerala Government’s petitions against the state’s Governor over the delay in approving Bills passed by the state Assembly.
“We will look into that judgement and see whether issues raised here are covered,” Justice Narasimha said, posting the matter for hearing on May 6.
The top court had earlier issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor on the Kerala Government’s petitions alleging that the then Governor Arif Mohammed Khan referred certain Bills to President Droupadi Murmu — which still remained pending.
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court had on April 8 set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills, reserving them to the President even after they were re-enacted by the state Assembly, terming it “illegal and erroneous".
A Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala had declared that the 10 bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent when they were presented to him for the second time after having been passed by the state legislature again.
The Bench – which also included Justice R Mahadevan – had set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on Bills reserved by Governors for her assent.
It had also said that the President should obtain the advisory opinion of the top court on Bills referred to her “by way of a reference under Article 143 and act in accordance with the same to dispel any apprehensions of bias, arbitrariness or mala fides.”
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has openly criticised the top court’s verdict on Tamil Nadu Bills and the Centre was likely to seek a review of the judgment.
Ruling that Governors don’t have discretion while exercising powers under Article 200 of the Constitution in dealing with bills passed by state Assemblies presented to them, the Supreme Court had said that they must abide by the advice of the Council of Ministers.
“Once the Bill is passed by the state legislature and presented to the Governor for assent, he must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as a general rule and only in exceptional situations… should he reserve it for the consideration of the President,” Justice Pardiwala had said while deciding on Tamil Nadu Government’s petition against the Governor for sitting over Bills.
India