New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that governors should not sit on the bills passed by the legislative assemblies and return them as soon as possible if they want them to be reconsidered.
The top court made the remarks while hearing the petition filed against Telangana Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan by the state government which has accused her of creating a 'constitutional impasse' by refusing to act on several Bills passed by the legislature.
"Governor as soon as possible return the bill if it's not a money bill along with request to reconsider....the expression as soon as possible has constitutional context and must be abided by," Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud ordered. The matter was listed before a bench comprising the CJI, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala.
Earlier arguing in the matter, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said no bills were pending now. "Now we don't have any bills pending....this is the communication that I have received, the SG told the apex court. The bench expressed its inclination to dispose of the matter right away since all the bills had been assented to, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave urged the court to pass directions "once and for all" to put the issue at rest.
"Elected government is at the mercy of the governor. Your lordships may decide this once and for all. In Madhya Pradesh bills are being assented to within one week, in Gujarat within one month. Telangana is an opposition state and so this is happening." To this, SG Mehta argued that he would not generalise the matter like that.
Dave responded to the SG that he was a law officer and as such he "will not". The same ended up in a heated discourse between the two with the SG telling Dave, "Shouting will not help before this court."
The words riled up Dave who responded: "The solicitor has stooped down to such low level. He said shouting. Did I shout? This is the law officer of India. Every time I appear, he has an allergy to me. I have an allergy to you Mr SG! He comes here gets all matters adjourned. He has stooped so low, I haven't seen this in 44 years!"
At this juncture, the bench made its decision of disposing the matter clear. However, while disposing, the bench added: "We are not entering upon the merits of the issues raised in the petition at this stage leaving the question of law open...The first proviso to Article 200 states that the governor must "as soon as possible" after the presentation of the bill for assent return the bill which is not a money bill together with a message for reconsideration to the house or houses of state legislature. The expression "as soon as possible" has a significant constitutional intent and must be borne into mind."
SG Mehta objected to the observation by the court and stated that the same was not necessary. To this, CJI said: "Mr SG we have not made this observation for this governor. We said this must be borne into mind."
In its petition, the Telangana government said it was constrained to move the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution in view of a “constitutional impasse” created on account of refusal of the governor to act on several Bills passed by the state legislature. It said Article 200 of the Constitution empowers the governor to either give assent to a Bill passed by the state assembly or to withhold the assent or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President. “This power has to be exercised as soon as possible,” it said.
On April 10, the governor’s office told the Supreme Court that assent had been given to three Bills passed by the state legislature and two others have been reserved for consideration and assent of the President.
Also read: KCR-Guv clash: No Raj Bhavan permission for budget yet; Govt approaches High Court
