Hyderabad: Supreme Court Judge B V Nagarathna Saturday pressed concerns regarding the involvement of state Governors in legal matters before constitutional courts, urging them to adhere to constitutional principles autonomously rather than relying on external guidance.
Speaking at an event organised by NALSAR University here, Justice Nagarathna said the recent trend of Governors becoming a point of litigation because of either omission in assenting to bills or other actions which they would take was "not a healthy trend under the Constitution to (have to) bring the actions or omissions of the Governor of a state before consideration before constitutional courts".
"Though it is called a gubernatorial post, it is a serious constitutional post, and Governors must act as per the Constitution so this kind of litigation reduces. It is quite embarrassing for Governors to be told to do or not do a thing. The time has come where they would be now told, I suppose, to do their duties as per the Constitution," Justice Nagarathna said.
Notably, her comments coincide with ongoing scrutiny of the conduct of Governor RN Ravi of Tamil Nadu and legal actions initiated by states like Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab against their respective Governors.
Reflecting on her dissent in the demonetisation case, the Supreme Court Judge empathized with the hardships faced by ordinary citizens and questioned the efficacy of the measure in curbing black money.
"We all know what happened on November 8, 2016. 86% of the currency was 500 and 1,000 notes, which I think the central government lost sight of. Imagine a labourer who had to get his notes exchanged for daily essentials. 98% of the currency came back, so where are we in black money eradication? So I thought it was a good way of converting black money into white money, of unaccounted cash entering the system. What happened with regard to income tax proceedings thereafter, we do not know. So this common man’s predicament really stirred me and I had to dissent," she said.
She also acknowledged a perceived dilution in the Supreme Court's stance regarding the Enforcement Directorate's obligations in money laundering arrests. Additionally, she commented on the Court's oscillating stance on reproductive rights issues in medical termination of pregnancy cases, advocating for a nuanced approach rather than a polarized debate.
Concluding her remarks, she noted the transformative journey of the Supreme Court in 2023 and underscored the importance of upholding constitutional values.
Read More
To Browbeat, Bully Others Is Vintage Congress Culture: PM Modi on Lawyers' Letter to CJI
