नवीनतम
Courtroom not a platform for political slugfest: SC
NEW DELHI [Maha Media]: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the states' arguing against the presidential reference whether the court can lay down a straightjacket formula for exercise of the power by the governor and the president by exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The apex court said it will not allow the courtroom to become a platform for a political slugfest and also it is not going to decide the matter on the basis of which political dispensation is in power or was in power.
A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, is hearing submissions on the presidential reference which raised constitutional questions on whether the court can impose timelines for governors and the president to deal with bills passed by state assemblies.
On the sixth day of hearing on the presidential reference, the CJI made it aptly clear to the parties’ that the courtroom is not a platform for political slugfest, as Centre and Tamil Nadu government counsel got involved in a heated exchange over delayed bills. The CJI told senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, “you can say endless withholding is not permissible, why should we go into the facts…otherwise we have to listen what happened in 1977, 1975, and all that…we do not want it to be converted into a political (slugfest)”.
The bench stressed that it will only interpret the Constitution. Justice Narasimha said, “Our decision is not data based”. “Our decision is on questions of law interpreting the Constitution”, added the CJI.
The CJI orally observed, “We are not going to decide the matter on the basis of which political dispensation is in power or was in power….”.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said if Mr Singhvi is going to rely on examples of constitutional provisions which concerned Andhra Pradesh, among others, then he would have to file a reply, as he had not made submissions on those aspects.
"If they (Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments) are going to rely on examples of Andhra Pradesh etc ... we would like to file a reply on this. Since, we need to show how the Constitution was taken on a joyride since its inception... let us see if we want to travel down that dirty path”, said Mehta.
CJI made it clear that the court would refrain from going into individual instances whether it's Andhra Pradesh or Telangana or Karnataka, and stressed that it will only interpret the provisions of the Constitution. Singhvi made submissions on what "falling through" of bills means, and, giving different scenarios, added that when the legislative assembly, which has been asked by the governor to reconsider the bill after it is returned in exercise of powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, "may not want to send it back, may not want to pass it, may change its policy -- the bill naturally falls through."
The bench asked what would happen if the governor decides to withhold the bill and does not send it back to the assembly, and pointed at the Centre’s contention that governor has an absolute power to withhold.
Singhvi argued that if the governor were to be allowed to hold on to bills forever, it would mean the governor kills the bills.
The CJI asked Singhvi, can we lay down a straightjacket formula for exercise of the power by the governor and the president by exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution?
Singhvi replied "suppose there is a statute, which indirectly impinges" and “my lords may have a rethink whether you will pass a direct order in Article 142, touching that statute”. “Suppose my lords have a clear implication in some other Article (of the Constitution) that your lordships should not touch Article 200, with a time limit. It is inexorable. Your lordship may not use 142, barring that…is there a fetter on your lordships in Article 142 in such a situation, is the question? This question is raised to create another limitation…”, replied Singhvi.
The hearing on the matter will continue after the lunch session.
