NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from the central government and the secretaries to the governors of West Bengal and Kerala regarding separate petitions filed by the two state governments. The petition challenges the decisions of their governors to keep several bills pending for an extended period, withhold assent, or reserve them for the President’s consideration.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Paridwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries to both governors.
During the proceedings, senior advocate KK Venugopal, representing Kerala, said that they were contesting the governor’s decision to refer bills for the president’s consideration. Senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Jaideep Gupta, representing West Bengal, pointed out that each time the matter was listed in the Supreme Court, the office of the governor referred bills to the president.
In March, the Kerala government led by CM Pinarayi Vijayan appealed against the actions of Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s office for keeping four bills pending indefinitely and subsequently reserving them for the President’s consideration. Prior to this, the Tamil Nadu government headed by MK Stalin had also moved the Supreme Court against the state government for delaying crucial bills that had been passed by the legislature.
Sanjay Basu, who serves as Bengal’s senior standing counsel in the Supreme Court, issued a statement in June asserting that the governor’s refusal to grant consent to the bills violated Article 200 of the Constitution. According to Basu, this action by the governor had “precipitated a constitutional crisis” in the state.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Paridwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries to both governors.
During the proceedings, senior advocate KK Venugopal, representing Kerala, said that they were contesting the governor’s decision to refer bills for the president’s consideration. Senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Jaideep Gupta, representing West Bengal, pointed out that each time the matter was listed in the Supreme Court, the office of the governor referred bills to the president.
In March, the Kerala government led by CM Pinarayi Vijayan appealed against the actions of Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s office for keeping four bills pending indefinitely and subsequently reserving them for the President’s consideration. Prior to this, the Tamil Nadu government headed by MK Stalin had also moved the Supreme Court against the state government for delaying crucial bills that had been passed by the legislature.
Sanjay Basu, who serves as Bengal’s senior standing counsel in the Supreme Court, issued a statement in June asserting that the governor’s refusal to grant consent to the bills violated Article 200 of the Constitution. According to Basu, this action by the governor had “precipitated a constitutional crisis” in the state.