The Supreme Court of India, addressing the ongoing tussle between the Tamil Nadu government and the state’s Governor over pending bills, emphasized the importance of maintaining a communication channel between the two constitutional authorities to resolve differences and prevent governance impasse. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, highlighted that the business of governance should not suffer due to such differences.
Also read- Supreme Court Intervenes For Cleaner Air: Aims For Better Delhi Winter (lawchakra.in)
The case in question involved the Tamil Nadu government’s plea against Governor R.N. Ravi for not passing several bills which were re-enacted by the state assembly and sent to him. During the hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed the bench that the Governor had written a letter to Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, inviting him to meet and discuss the issues, as suggested by the Court in the last hearing. The bench appreciated this move, stating,
“There must be some channel of communication between them. Let them start talking… Business of government and governance has to go on.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, pointed out that the government had raised constitutional issues, urging the apex court to adjudicate them. The bench responded,
“We will do what we have to do in this matter but in the meantime why do not they meet?”
The AG also shared his recent experience of suggesting the West Bengal Governor meet with the Chief Minister to sort out differences, which led to a resolution after the meeting. He expressed hope that a similar amicable resolution could be found in the case of Tamil Nadu.
Singhvi, highlighting that some of the pending bills had already been sent to the President by the Tamil Nadu Governor, requested the Court to pass a status quo order.
“Let us not have precipitation in the matter when we come next time. Let status quo be maintained,” he submitted.
However, the bench declined to pass a status quo order, stating that it would not be appropriate to injunct the President. The bench asked the AG to look into the matter, emphasizing the need for a resolution.
This case underscores the Supreme Court’s role in mediating conflicts between state governments and Governors, especially in opposition-led states, and highlights the Court’s approach to ensuring uninterrupted governance amidst constitutional disputes. The Court’s emphasis on dialogue and communication as a means to resolve such impasses reflects its commitment to upholding the smooth functioning of government and governance.
