Verdict on TN Bills doesn’t cover issues raised by Kerala Govt: Centre to SC

“The (Tamil Nadu) judgment does not cover certain issues of this (Kerala) case on facts. There were certain “factual differences” between the two cases and we would like to show these,” Attorney General R Venkataramani told a Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Kerala Governor’s office, supported the Attorney General. “I am examining the judgment,” Mehta said, seeking time to revert.

These submissions came after senior counsel KK Venugopal submitted, on behalf of the Kerala Government, that the judgement delivered by a Bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala in the Tamil Nadu case had framed guidelines and set timelines for governors and the President on granting assent to Bills.

“The matter is covered by the recent judgment. But, what is the time limit for reference to the President? That’s held to be three months based on a circular issued by the Government of India,” Venugopal told the Bench.

The Bench agreed to take up the Kerala Government’s petitions against the state’s governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the Assembly on May 6. “We will look into that judgement and see whether issues raised here are covered,” Justice Narasimha said, posting the matter for hearing on May 6.

The top court had earlier issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor on the Kerala Government’s petitions alleging that the then Governor Arif Mohammed Khan referred certain Bills to President Droupadi Murmu, which are still pending.

The Supreme Court on April 8 set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills and reserving them to the President even after they were re-enacted by the state Assembly, terming it “illegal and erroneous”.

A Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala had declared that the 10 Bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent when they were presented to him for the second time after having been passed by the state legislature again.

The Bench – which also included Justice R Mahadevan – had set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on Bills reserved by Governors for her assent.

It had also said that the President should obtain the advisory opinion of the top court on bills referred to her “by way of a reference under Article 143 and act in accordance with the same to dispel any apprehensions of bias, arbitrariness or mala fides.”