On Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted the increasing frequency of conflict between governors and governments, especially in states led by opposition parties. They asserted that a “channel of communication” needs to be maintained to resolve disagreements and avert gridlock in governing.
The bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, hearing a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the state’s governor for not passing several bills which were sent to him after being passed by the assembly, stated that differences should not result in the business of government and governance suffering, and that chief ministers and governors should resolve their differences through dialogue and discussion.
At the start of the hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed the bench that the governor had sent a letter to the CM to meet and talk, as the court had suggested in the previous hearing. The bench was pleased with this, saying, “It is important for there to be communication between them. Let them begin discussing… The work of government and governance needs to keep going.”
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the state, informed the bench that the government had raised constitutional issues and the Supreme Court should review them. The bench replied, “We will take the necessary action in this case, but why don’t they meet in the meantime?” The Attorney General mentioned that he had recently proposed that the West Bengal governor and the Chief Minister of the state should meet to sort out their differences, and the issue had been resolved after the meeting. He then suggested that a similar solution could be found for Tamil Nadu.
Singhvi pleaded to the court that since the Tamil Nadu governor had already sent some of the pending bills to the President, a status quo order should be passed. He requested that there should be no “precipitation” in the matter when they next meet and that the status quo should be maintained.
The bench stated that it would not be appropriate to issue an injunction against the President, and that doing so would not uphold the current order. It requested that the Attorney General investigate the matter further.
