NEW DELHI: The Centre on Monday reiterated its stand and opposed Kerala government's plea to withdraw its petition against the Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly.
Senior advocate and former Attorney General (AG) of India, K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought to withdraw the plea from the top court by saying that the issue had become infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case on April 8.
This was vehemently opposed by the Centre through its top law officer, the AG of India, R. Venkataramani, and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, as they urged the court to await the Apex Court's decision on the reference of the President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills.
"Kerala government's petition could also be referred to be tagged along with the presidential reference," Mehta argued before the apex court.
Venugopal continued to plead before the top court, questioning how his plea could be opposed. Finding no rationale in the Centre’s arguments, he submitted, “Why my lords are hesitant for the state to withdraw the petition?”
The former top law officer said that the issues raised in this case will be further dealt with by the Supreme Court when hearing the 14 questions raised in the Presidential Reference on the assent of state bills by a Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
The Presidential Reference came after the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in the TN Governor case.
Thereby, a two-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice P S Narasimha and Justice A S Chandurkar, on Monday, deferred the matter for further hearing to July 25, after Venkataramani sought more time to clear the issue.
Kerala government had last year moved the apex court against the state Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly.
Venugopal had earlier argued that the petition, which was filed against the delay on the part of the Governor in granting assent to bills, had become infructuous as the bills were sent to the President later. He had earlier, in one of the hearings, argued that seven bills are pending with the state's Governor.
The Supreme Court had earlier issued notice to the Centre and Additional Chief Secretary to the Kerala Governor and asked them to file a detailed reply.
Kerala govt had moved the SC challenging the Governor's decisions to keep several bills pending for months, either refusing to assent them or reserving them for the President's consideration.
Venugopal had earlier pleaded to the apex court that there was a need for the Court to lay down guidelines on this issue pertaining to when the Governors can return/refer bills.
"This is a confusion in the minds of various Governors in the country as to what their powers are in regard to assenting to bills. In the present (Kerala) case, out of eight bills, two of them had been kept pending for 23 months. One for 15 months. Another for 13 months. And others for 10 months. It is a very sad state of affairs. This is a confusion among the Governors that they keep bills pending. This is against the Constitution," the senior lawyer had told the apex court.
Venugopal had further said that this Court should tell the Governor as to when they can refuse to assent, when they can refer to the President.
In its petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, before the top court, Kerala govt had challenged the reconsideration and action of President Droupadi Murmu in withholding assent for four out of the seven bills referred by the Kerala Governor.
The Kerala govt also challenged the state Governor's action of referring the bills to the President, arguing that none of the bills related to Centre-State relations required the Presidential assent.