NEW DELHI: Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, while making his arguments on the scope of a governor’s powers in assenting to bills, read out a passage from one of Justice Krishna Iyer ’s judgments and compared the judge’s prowess in English with that of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor , incidentally both hailing from Kerala.
Singhvi said unlike Justice Iyer’s English, which was lyrical and not difficult to understand, to fathom Tharoor’s English one would require a dictionary, a prowess which the MP uses to flummox many while responding to tricky or difficult questions. CJI B R Gavai said a Kerala HC judge is attempting to emulate Justice Iyer these days.
After lunch break, Singhvi issued a clarification , “I mentioned Tharoor in admiration and not in derogation.” The CJI in a lighter vein said, “Neither can we adjudicate that nor can we stop what will be said (about Singhvi’s remarks) on social media.”
The bench, headed by CJI Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narsimha, and AS Chandurkar, focused on questions surrounding gubernatorial discretion. The bench noted that the Constituent Assembly had replaced the six-week timeline for a governor to act on a bill with the phrase “as soon as possible.”
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that a state government cannot invoke Article 32 to seek a writ against a governor. Singhvi countered that a governor has no discretionary power to negate a bill passed by the assembly. He cautioned, “If a governor’s decisions are made non-justiciable, he could, rather than the people’s elected representatives, become the supreme law-making authority by merely consigning a bill to his cupboard.”
Singhvi explained that withholding a bill must be followed by returning it to the House for reconsideration. “If the House does not repass the bill, it falls through. This is the intended meaning of Article 200 regarding a governor’s power to withhold assent. Otherwise, the democratic will of the people could be subverted,” he said.
The bench further asked whether a governor could reserve a bill for the President if it conflicted with central law. Singhvi replied that a governor may reserve a bill for the President when first presented. “If the House approves it again, with or without amendments, the governor has no option but to give assent,” he clarified.
Concluding, Singhvi emphasised that a governor is merely an 'ornamental head' of the state.
Arguments from states opposing presidential references are expected to continue on Tuesday.
Singhvi said unlike Justice Iyer’s English, which was lyrical and not difficult to understand, to fathom Tharoor’s English one would require a dictionary, a prowess which the MP uses to flummox many while responding to tricky or difficult questions. CJI B R Gavai said a Kerala HC judge is attempting to emulate Justice Iyer these days.
After lunch break, Singhvi issued a clarification , “I mentioned Tharoor in admiration and not in derogation.” The CJI in a lighter vein said, “Neither can we adjudicate that nor can we stop what will be said (about Singhvi’s remarks) on social media.”
The bench, headed by CJI Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narsimha, and AS Chandurkar, focused on questions surrounding gubernatorial discretion. The bench noted that the Constituent Assembly had replaced the six-week timeline for a governor to act on a bill with the phrase “as soon as possible.”
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that a state government cannot invoke Article 32 to seek a writ against a governor. Singhvi countered that a governor has no discretionary power to negate a bill passed by the assembly. He cautioned, “If a governor’s decisions are made non-justiciable, he could, rather than the people’s elected representatives, become the supreme law-making authority by merely consigning a bill to his cupboard.”
Singhvi explained that withholding a bill must be followed by returning it to the House for reconsideration. “If the House does not repass the bill, it falls through. This is the intended meaning of Article 200 regarding a governor’s power to withhold assent. Otherwise, the democratic will of the people could be subverted,” he said.
The bench further asked whether a governor could reserve a bill for the President if it conflicted with central law. Singhvi replied that a governor may reserve a bill for the President when first presented. “If the House approves it again, with or without amendments, the governor has no option but to give assent,” he clarified.
Concluding, Singhvi emphasised that a governor is merely an 'ornamental head' of the state.
Arguments from states opposing presidential references are expected to continue on Tuesday.
You may also like
Dharmasthala case: Sujata Bhat to withdraw complaint; SIT finds her claims contradictory
From rags to riches: journey of India's star kabaddi player Naveen Kumar
Putin to visit India in December amid tariff dispute over Russian oil, to hold bilateral talks with PM Modi
Ryan Gosling Star Wars movie first look as British TV comedian announced as co-star
Kerala CPI(M) warns proposed GST revisions could cost state up to Rs 80,000 cr
