New Delhi: A five-member constitution bench, presiding over a presidential reference seeking Supreme Court's views on whether it could lay down timelines and procedures for the President and state governors, reiterated that it will "not ascertain the correctness of the judgement" delivered by a division bench in April which laid down timelines for governors for grant of their assent to bills passed by state legislatures. "We are not ascertaining the correctness of the judgement. Whether it should have been referred to a larger bench or not. We cannot open a pandora's box. We will confine to what has been referred to us by the Hon'ble President...we are just going to answer the questions raised in the (Presidential) reference," Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai said.
The bench also questioned Centre's claim that a false alarm was being raised by a few state governments on governors sitting over bills passed by state legislatures. "How can you say (this)...if bills are pending for four years before the governor," CJI Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
To buttress his argument, Mehta submitted that data shows that since 1970 (till now), only 20 of the 17,000 bills were withheld by governors. The Solicitor General added that 90% of bills are granted assent within one month.
During the resumed hearing, the bench verbally observed: "We are proud of our Constitution. Look at what is happening in neighbouring states, like what happened in Nepal yesterday...". The bench also remarked that it would refrain from going into the data and confine itself to the interpretation of constitutional provisions raised in the presidential reference.
Mehta further submitted that a governor "is not a super chief minister". He added that the power to withhold a bill can be exercised by a governor only if "something is atrociously unconstitutional (in a bill passed by the state legislature)". Mehta further submitted that "such power cannot be used (by the governor) at the drop of a hat." Mehta argued that the judgement which will be rendered by the constitution bench will not be a mere "opinion". The Solicitor General added that the constitution bench's "opinion is a law".
The bench also questioned Centre's claim that a false alarm was being raised by a few state governments on governors sitting over bills passed by state legislatures. "How can you say (this)...if bills are pending for four years before the governor," CJI Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
To buttress his argument, Mehta submitted that data shows that since 1970 (till now), only 20 of the 17,000 bills were withheld by governors. The Solicitor General added that 90% of bills are granted assent within one month.
During the resumed hearing, the bench verbally observed: "We are proud of our Constitution. Look at what is happening in neighbouring states, like what happened in Nepal yesterday...". The bench also remarked that it would refrain from going into the data and confine itself to the interpretation of constitutional provisions raised in the presidential reference.
Mehta further submitted that a governor "is not a super chief minister". He added that the power to withhold a bill can be exercised by a governor only if "something is atrociously unconstitutional (in a bill passed by the state legislature)". Mehta further submitted that "such power cannot be used (by the governor) at the drop of a hat." Mehta argued that the judgement which will be rendered by the constitution bench will not be a mere "opinion". The Solicitor General added that the constitution bench's "opinion is a law".
You may also like
"Tremendous excitement": Union Minister Hardeep Puri on PM Modi to inaugurate Assam Bioethanol Plant at Numaligarh Refinery Ltd tomorrow
Protests erupt in Wayanad after Congress leader's daughter-in-law attempts suicide
Exact date UK households 'must' turn heating on as temperatures plunge
Man accused of beating girlfriend to death before astonishing Fitbit discovery
As floodwater starts receding, Punjab to start rehabilitation in 2,300 villages
