SC requests clarification at the center on the refusal of governors to act on the bills of the assembly

The Supreme Court asked Thursday August 21 at the center if the hands of the constitutional courses could be linked if the constitutional officials refused to pay their functions or if the governor remained inactive on the bills adopted by the state assemblies.

A constitutional court composed of five judges led by chief judge Br Gavai made these remarks after the request general Tushar Mehta, representing the center, said that if certain governors sat on bills adopted by the Assembly, political solutions should be explored by states rather than judicial solutions.

The magistracy, also made up of the Surya Kant judges, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and As Chandurkar, hears a presidential referral to the question of whether the court can impose deadlines on governors and the president to deal with the bills adopted by state assemblies. If there was a wrong, said the judiciary, there should be a remedy.

Cji Gavai then asked Mehta: “If constitutional officials do not pay their functions without any reason, can the hands of a constitutional court be linked?” Mehta said that for all problems, the courts could not be the solution and that in a democracy, primacy should be given to dialogue.

Judge Kant added: “If there is an inaction on the part of the governor, who may vary from one state to another, and if a injured state is addressed to the court, the judicial control of such inaction can be completely prohibited. Tell us what can be the solution?

Read more: Lok Sabha adopted 12 bills, Rajya Sabha 15 during the monsoon session in the midst of opposition demonstrations

Calling for a certain “flexibility”, Mehta argued: “Suppose the governor sits on bills, there are political solutions that can be adopted. It is not everywhere that the chief minister rushes to court. There are cases where talks take place, the chief minister meets the governor, he meets the Prime Minister and the President and solutions are found.”

The policeman said there had been several telephone conversations to get out of the deadlock. “For decades, this practice has been adopted to resolve any disputes. The delegations will meet the governor, the president and sometimes a median route is found.” He stressed that political and political maturity had to be shown to end the deadlock between the government of the State and the governor, who is the representative of the center. “I say that all the problems of this country may not have a solution here, in court. There are problems in the country for which you find solutions within the system,” he added.

Mehta also argued that nowhere in the Constitution was fixed for the governor or president to follow up on bills and that when a period was provided, he was expressly provided.

Cji Gavai then told Mehta: “If there is a problem, there must be a remedy. This court is the guardian of the Constitution and he will have to interpret the Constitution by giving it a literal meaning. Justice Kant agreed with the CJI and said: “If the power of interpretation belongs to the Supreme Court, then the interpretation of the law must be judged by the court. »»

Mehta said justiciability was a different thing, while adding something to the Constitution was different. “There must be a certain flexibility in relations with constitutional officials. This court has repeatedly called the lawyer or the representative and asked him to do certain work without mentioning it in the judgment,” said Mehta. He referred to the highest court saying that parliament should examine if there were additions to the Constitution. “This court may very well ask Parliament to adopt a law fixing a calendar for the governor to treat the bills adopted by the Assembly, but that cannot be done through the judgment of this court,” added Mehta.

Read more: explained: what the three bills presented by Amit Shah mean for the Prime Minister, the Ministers and the Ministers Arrested

Judge Narasimha noted: “If an extreme opinion is adopted to affirm that you cannot do it, you say that we do not have at all the power to do so, how do you make the Constitution work? »»

Mehta then referred to the verdict of April 8 in the case of the governor of Tamil Nadu, who led to the current presidential dismissal, and declared that the verdicts indicate that the president and the governor will record the reasons and that if they do not respect the calendar, the states can address the Supreme Court or the High Court. “This means that an institution orders the president to do so within a certain period. I respect the instructions and there may be a justification but that cannot confer competence,” said Mehta.

The hearing is underway.

In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised the powers conferred on to him by article 143 (1) to find out with the highest court if judicial orders could impose deadlines for the exercise of the president’s discretion during the examination of the bills adopted by state assemblies.

On April 8, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the government’s powers with regard to the bills adopted by the Assembly of Tamil Nadu, for the first time prescribed the president to decide on the bills reserved for his examination by the governor within three months from the date on which such a reference was received.