The Crossbill News Desk
The CPI(M) and Congress in Kerala on Saturday (April 12) lashed out at Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar for his reported criticism of the Supreme Court’s recent verdict mandating time-bound action by Governors on Bills passed by state legislatures.
In an interview to Hindustan Times, Arlekar termed the SC ruling — which came in the context of Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi — as “overreach by the judiciary”, and suggested that the matter should have been referred to a Constitution Bench instead of being decided by a Division Bench.
“It is the right of the Parliament to make amendments. You need to have a two-third majority in favour of the amendment. And two judges sitting there, they decide the fate of the constitutional provision? I don’t understand this. This is overreach by the judiciary. They should not have done this. I may be wrong,” Arlekar told Hindustan Times.
"I can understand the Supreme Court making a suggestion that there has to be a certain time-frame, but it should be decided by Parliament.The governor of Tamil Nadu must be having some issues (with the bills); let them address that. We have seen many judicial cases in different courts pending for years together.High courts and the Supreme Court keep matters pending. There must be some reasons. If SC judges have some reasons, governor also may have some reasons," he added.
Also read: Supreme Court Strikes Down TN Governor’s Move to Reserve 10 Bills for President
During at a press meet in Delhi, the newly elected CPI(M) general secretary, M A Baby said the Governor’s remarks were “undesirable” and reflected a disregard for the spirit of the judiciary's verdict.
Responding to reporters’ queries on the issue, Baby asked, “So, how can Governors have an authority which the President does not have?,” news agency PTI reported.
“All Governors should be able to recognise and accept the spirit of the SC verdict. However, Kerala Governor’s remarks show that he does not accept the spirit of the apex court decision. His criticism of the SC verdict was undesirable” Baby added.
Congress leader and AICC general secretary K C Venugopal, addressing party workers at an event in Kozhikode, termed the Governor’s remarks “unfortunate” and politically motivated.
“It is unfortunate that the Kerala Governor has come forward against the Supreme Court verdict,” said Venugopal, who is also the Congress MP from Alappuzha.
Also read: SC Sets Three-Month Deadline for Presidential Decision on State Bills Reserved by Governors
He further alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is misusing the office of Governors to “subvert elected state governments through the back door”. He hailed the Supreme Court judgment as a “silver lining” in the fight against the Sangh Parivar, stating that the prolonged delay in granting assent to several pieces of legislation has seriously undermined democratic processes.
Venugopal also accused Arlekar of “glorifying Parliament” while showing “no respect” for state legislatures, and warned that such actions strike at the federal structure of the Constitution.
The SC verdict, hailed as a milestone in reaffirming legislative supremacy, has stirred political debate, especially in states where Governors and elected governments have often been at loggerheads.
In an interview to Hindustan Times, Arlekar termed the SC ruling — which came in the context of Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi — as “overreach by the judiciary”, and suggested that the matter should have been referred to a Constitution Bench instead of being decided by a Division Bench.
“It is the right of the Parliament to make amendments. You need to have a two-third majority in favour of the amendment. And two judges sitting there, they decide the fate of the constitutional provision? I don’t understand this. This is overreach by the judiciary. They should not have done this. I may be wrong,” Arlekar told Hindustan Times.
"I can understand the Supreme Court making a suggestion that there has to be a certain time-frame, but it should be decided by Parliament.The governor of Tamil Nadu must be having some issues (with the bills); let them address that. We have seen many judicial cases in different courts pending for years together.High courts and the Supreme Court keep matters pending. There must be some reasons. If SC judges have some reasons, governor also may have some reasons," he added.
Also read: Supreme Court Strikes Down TN Governor’s Move to Reserve 10 Bills for President
During at a press meet in Delhi, the newly elected CPI(M) general secretary, M A Baby said the Governor’s remarks were “undesirable” and reflected a disregard for the spirit of the judiciary's verdict.
Responding to reporters’ queries on the issue, Baby asked, “So, how can Governors have an authority which the President does not have?,” news agency PTI reported.
“All Governors should be able to recognise and accept the spirit of the SC verdict. However, Kerala Governor’s remarks show that he does not accept the spirit of the apex court decision. His criticism of the SC verdict was undesirable” Baby added.
Congress leader and AICC general secretary K C Venugopal, addressing party workers at an event in Kozhikode, termed the Governor’s remarks “unfortunate” and politically motivated.
“It is unfortunate that the Kerala Governor has come forward against the Supreme Court verdict,” said Venugopal, who is also the Congress MP from Alappuzha.
Also read: SC Sets Three-Month Deadline for Presidential Decision on State Bills Reserved by Governors
He further alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is misusing the office of Governors to “subvert elected state governments through the back door”. He hailed the Supreme Court judgment as a “silver lining” in the fight against the Sangh Parivar, stating that the prolonged delay in granting assent to several pieces of legislation has seriously undermined democratic processes.
Venugopal also accused Arlekar of “glorifying Parliament” while showing “no respect” for state legislatures, and warned that such actions strike at the federal structure of the Constitution.
The SC verdict, hailed as a milestone in reaffirming legislative supremacy, has stirred political debate, especially in states where Governors and elected governments have often been at loggerheads.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment