The Supreme Court has completed the hearing on the issue of tying the President and the Governor within the deadline. This hearing started for 10 days due to the Presidential Reference sent by President Draupadi Murmu. The bench of 5 judges has to decide that if the President and the Governor do not take a decision on the bills soon, can the court interfere in it?
What is the matter?
In April this year, a 2 -judge bench of the Supreme Court approved 10 Bills of the Tamil Nadu government pending with the Governor and the President. The court had also set a time limit for the decision of the Governor or the President. The court had said that if he does not take the decision in the stipulated time, the state government can come to the court.
5 judges benches
President Draupadi Murmu sent Presidential References regarding this decision of the Supreme Court. In this reference sent under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution, the President raised 14 questions to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gawai constituted a 5 -judge bench for hearing them. The remaining members of the bench are- Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar.
Argument in support of reference
During the hearing, big lawyers took the front from both sides. The central government was side by Attorney General R Venkatarmani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Senior advocate Harish Salve on behalf of Maharashtra government and Mahesh Jethmalani on behalf of Chhattisgarh government supported him. These lawyers said that in Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, the deadline has not been set for the Governor and the President. The court cannot add a new thing on its behalf. Doing so will be considered a constitutional amendment which comes under the jurisdiction of Parliament.
The central government also said that the Governor is bound by the oath of adherence to the Constitution. His role cannot be limited to signing every decision of the state government. The constitution makers thought the power to stop the bills to the Governor. Apart from this, the Central Government also cited Article 361. Under this article, the governor cannot be made a party in any court proceedings.
The Center also argued that the dispute between the Center and the states should be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution as the original dispute. Article 32 is to protect the fundamental rights of common citizens. The state government cannot file a petition for Article 32.
Big lawyers in protest
Many states opposed the attitude of the central government. The legendary lawyers also appeared on his behalf. Kapil Sibal for West Bengal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Tamil Nadu, KK Venugopal for Kerala, Gopal Subramaniam for Karnataka and Arvind Datar for Punjab appeared. These lawyers said that the Governor cannot get the right to stop the bills indefinitely. If it is allowed, it will make the elected government depend on the wishes of the Governor.
These states argued that the Governor can work only through the assistance and consultation of the cabinet. He cannot stop the bills passed from the assembly for indefinite time. He can send a bill to the government again for consideration. But if the assembly passes the bill back in the old form, then the Governor has no option but to approve it.