Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the state government asked the bench for an adjournment till January.
Published Dec 13, 2023 | 8:01 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 13, 2023 | 8:01 PM
Supreme Court had asked TN Governor on why he acted on pending Bills only after it issued notice.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 13 December, urged Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and state Governor RN Ravi to have an open dialogue to resolve the issues relating to the latter not giving assent to the Bills passed by the state Legislature.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state government, asked the bench for an adjournment till January.
He cited the need for a detailed discussion on the question of whether the Governor could refer to the President the Bills re-passed by the Legislature.
“We will do what we have to do in this matter, but in the meantime why don’t they meet? If there is some way out…, the fact that Bills have been sent can always be resolved…There must be some channel open between the CM and the Governor. At least let them start talking to each other. We’ll resolve the controversy. The business of government has to go on,” said Chief Justive of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, reported LiveLaw.
Referring to the earlier direction of the court to the chief minister to discuss matters with the Governor, senior advocate Singhvi ruled out the possibility and said: “This is purely a Constitutional question that this Court has to decide.”
The apex court had on 1 December questioned the Governor’s decision to forward to the President the Bills he initially withheld consent to and which the state Assembly returned to him after re-enacting them.
The Bench said under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor had three options to deal with the Bills passed by the State legislature.
He can give his consent, he can withhold the assent, or refer it to the President. By originally withholding his consent, the Governor had already made his choice, and he now could not refer them to the President.
CJI Chandrachud, heading a bench also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, had said it was best the Governor and the chief minister meet and settle the issue.
Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani cited the example of the university issue in West Bengal.
He said that his intervention, following the suggestion by the court, had yielded results as the issues between the state chief minister and the Governor were resolved.
He expressed hope that the same could happen with Tamil Nadu.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Singhvi sought status quo order from the court so that the President would not act on Bills sent to him.
“Let us not have precipitation that when we come next time, the President has passed or rejected the Bills. Let status quo be maintained.”
“We don’t want to injunct the President of India. It doesn’t look good. If the Bills have already gone to the President, we can’t ask to not act.”
However, the CJI orally asked the attorney general to look into the matter. Further hearing on the matter will be held in January 2024.
