During the Courts and the Constitution Conference hosted by NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna delivered a pointed speech on Saturday, addressing the role of Governors in state litigation before constitutional courts.
Justice Nagarathna expressed concern about the "recent trend" of governors becoming embroiled in legal disputes. As an example, she cited Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's initial refusal to swear in DMK leader K. Ponmudi after the Supreme Court stayed his conviction. She pointed out instances where several state governments, particularly from South India, challenged governors who delayed or withheld assent to bills passed by their legislatures.
"The recent trend has been that the Governor of a state is becoming a point of litigation because of either omission by not considering the bills in assenting or giving opinion on the bills or other kinds of actions which the Governors would take. I feel this is not a healthy trend under the Constitution to bring the actions or omissions of the Governor of a state for consideration before constitutional courts. I think I must appeal that the office of the Governor, though it is called a gubernatorial post, it is a serious Constitutional post. The Governors must discharge their duties under the Constitution in accordance with Constitution, so that this kind of litigation before the law courts reduce. It is quite embarrassing for the Governors to be told to do or told not do a thing. Hence, the time has come where they would be now told, I suppose, to discharge their duties in accordance with the Constitution," Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna said.
Nagarathna, known for her dissenting opinion in the 2016 demonetization case, spoke about the hardships faced by ordinary people after the sudden withdrawal of high-value currency notes.
"I am happy that I got to be part of that bench. We all know what happened on November 8, 2016. 86% of the currency was 500 and 1,000 notes, which I think the Central government lost sight of. Imagine a labourer who had to get his notes exchanged for daily essentials. 98% of the currency came back, so where are we in black money eradication (goal of demonetisation)? So I thought (at the time) it was a good way of making black money white money, of unaccounted cash entering the system. What happened with regard to income tax proceedings thereafter, we do not know. So this common man's predicament really stirred me and I had to dissent," she said.
Regarding medical termination of pregnancy cases, Nagarathna cautioned against polarizing the debate on abortion rights.
"It is a very difficult decision for a woman to terminate a pregnancy," she said. "We should not polarise the debate like this. Ultimately, it depends on the facts of the case."
Justice Nagarathna also spoke about the importance of dissent in jurisprudence, quoting Justice H.R. Khanna's famous words: "Dissent is an appeal to the spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judges believe the court to have been betrayed."
Other speakers at the event included former Supreme Court of India Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Chief Justice Alok Aradhe of the Telangana High Court, Judge Sapana Malla from the Supreme Court of Nepal, and Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah from the Pakistani Supreme Court.
(With Inputs from LiveLaw and Bar&Bench)