Read Time: 07 minutes
Notably, the Telangana Government had also sought a declaration qua the instant plea that the inaction, omission and failure to comply with the constitutional mandate qua the assent of the bills by the Constitutional functionary-the Governor is highly irregular, illegal and against the Constitutional mandate.
The Supreme Court today disposed of the plea filed by the Telangana government seeking a direction to Governor Soundararajan to give her assent to bills passed by the State Legislature which were pending before her, after noting that "no bills were pending before her at the moment."
"Now we don't have any bills pending before us. I will share a copy of the communication we have received. Two bills have been returned. Certain clarifications have been sought", Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court today.
"We will dispose it of at this stage, come back to us later if such a situation arises..", the bench comprising CJI Chandrachud and Justice Narasimha said.
On hearing this, a visibly upset Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave told the court that a Gover could not just sit over Bills.
"In Gujarat, MP bills are passed in one day, maximum one week, this is happening only in opposition states..", Dave added while requesting the Court to observe that in the future, such things may not happen.
"..that is not a very healthy thing to ask for..", SG Mehta responded.
This exchange was followed by a heated argument between the two counsels wherein Sr Adv Dave was heard saying, "Mr Solicitor has stooped down to such depths.. this is unfair.. I have not seen this in 44 years of my career.."
The Supreme Court then went on to record in its order that as per Article 200 of the Constitution of India, the phrase used "as soon as possible", has some constitutional significance and must be borne in mind by functionaries.
Two week back, SG Tushar Mehta had told the Top Court that he would be having a discussion personally with the Governor on the issue.
SG had also placed on record a letter that he had received on behalf of the Governor. After perusing the contents of the letter, the bench also comprising Justices Pardiwala and Narasimha had ordered, "The letter indicates that certain clarifications have been sought by the Governor. List the petition after two weeks, Mr. Solicitor you tell us then."
In March, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Centre and sought its response in the instant plea.
Recently, in view of a very prequent constitutional impasse created on account of the refusal of the Governor of the State of Telangana to act on several bills passed by the State Legislature, which were pending since 14 September 2022 till date for the assent of the Governor, the State had moved the Top Court.
Earlier last month, the plea was mentioned before a CJI Chandrachud led bench by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave requesting an urgent hearing.
Referring to Article 200 of the Constitution of India which provides for "Assent to Bills", the state has submitted in its plea that:
"Article 200 is couched in mandatory language as it repeatedly uses the word 'shall' thereby clearly suggesting that the Governor must act as soon as possible to either grant assent or withhold the assent and return the bill as envisaged only on the advice of the council of ministers. In a parliamentary democracy, the Governor has no discretion to differ or delay necessary assent as required on the bills presented for assent."
The plea further submitted that any refusal on the part of the Governor including any delay will defeat the parliamentary democracy and the will of the people.
Case Title: The State of Telangana vs. Secretary to Her Excellency the Hon’ble Governor, For the State of Telangana and Anr.
Please Login or Register
