Not every problem needs to be solved by the Supreme Court, the government said Thursday afternoon, the third day of the presidential reference hearing. Some issues, the government said, should, be worked out between a Chief Minister and the Prime Minister or President.
Appearing for the centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that if some governors were, in fact, sitting on bills, then a political solution should be prioritised over a judicial answer.
Mr Mehta’s response followed a question by the court – ‘what options do state governments have if a governor sits on a bill for an extended period?’ The Solicitor General said, “Suppose a particular governor is sitting on bills… there are political solutions. And such solutions are taking place, but it is not everywhere. It is not everywhere the state government rushes to the Supreme Court. The Chief Minister goes and requests the Prime Minister… meets the President.”
“There are delegations that go and say, ‘these bills are pending, please talk to the Governor and let him take a decision, one way or the other’. The issue can be sorted out on the telephone.”
“This does not confer (the courts) jurisdiction to lay down a timeline… In the absence of a timeline in the Constitution, can it be laid down by the court even if there is justification?”
The remarks were made as the court advises President Droupadi Murmu over its April verdict, which set the President and Governors a deadline to clear bills passed by state legislatures.
In the past non-BJP ruled states – Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab – have accused their respective governors, who are appointed by the federal government, of deliberately withholding consent to bills passed by the state legislature or delaying assent by passing it to the President.
In April, in a potentially landmark ruling in the context of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and the state’s ruling DMK, the Supreme Court ruled the former’s actions “arbitrary” and “illegal”.
The court said bills returned to and passed by the state legislature for a second time had to be cleared, either by the Governor or the President, within 30 days.
That verdict has been challenged by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution, which empowers her to seek the court’s opinion on any question of law of public importance.
On Tuesday the court emphasised its advisory role. The Chief Justice said the court would not sit in appeal over the Tamil Nadu case and would not overturn, at this time, the April judgement.
