The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated its query whether time limits can be fixed in matters pertaining to constitutional provisions.
A five-member Constitution bench headed by CJI BR Gavai said while there can be no quarrel over the "requirement of expediency in legislative processes", but to "fix a time limit is a risk that is taken by courts".
The bench is presiding over a presidential reference seeking SC's views on whether it could lay down timelines and procedures for the president and governors. CJI Gavai orally observed that a governor is supposed to be a "friend, philosopher and guide".
Justice PS Narasimha, part of the bench, orally remarked "we are not saying there is no requirement of expediency and immediacy in legislative processes. But to fix a time limit is a risk that is taken by the courts".
Appearing on behalf of Kerala government, senior advocate KK Venugopal argued a governor "cannot be an adversary". The senior lawyer added that governors ought to be "collaborative" with the state government. "There is an intimate relationship between the governor and legislature. He is intimately part of the legislature in actual sense. He is not an adversary. He has to go along with every single bill."
He added when there is no agreement even after discussions between the government and the governor and the latter intends to withhold assent to a bill, the council of ministers can advise him under Article 163 to grant assent. Another lawyer appearing for another state government said "governor is not a constitutional filter".
A five-member Constitution bench headed by CJI BR Gavai said while there can be no quarrel over the "requirement of expediency in legislative processes", but to "fix a time limit is a risk that is taken by courts".
The bench is presiding over a presidential reference seeking SC's views on whether it could lay down timelines and procedures for the president and governors. CJI Gavai orally observed that a governor is supposed to be a "friend, philosopher and guide".
Justice PS Narasimha, part of the bench, orally remarked "we are not saying there is no requirement of expediency and immediacy in legislative processes. But to fix a time limit is a risk that is taken by the courts".
Appearing on behalf of Kerala government, senior advocate KK Venugopal argued a governor "cannot be an adversary". The senior lawyer added that governors ought to be "collaborative" with the state government. "There is an intimate relationship between the governor and legislature. He is intimately part of the legislature in actual sense. He is not an adversary. He has to go along with every single bill."
He added when there is no agreement even after discussions between the government and the governor and the latter intends to withhold assent to a bill, the council of ministers can advise him under Article 163 to grant assent. Another lawyer appearing for another state government said "governor is not a constitutional filter".
You may also like
MEA urges Indians to defer travel to Nepal, issues advisory
"Opposition could not save their own votes": Devendra Fadnavis congratulates Radhakrishnan on winning Vice-Presidential election
Trump urges EU to impose 100% tariffs on India, China to pressure Putin: Sources
Senator criticises Trump's India policy, says US efforts have been 'undone'
India to Participate in Multinational Military Exercise in Russia
