Governors must act as per the Constitution: Supreme Court's Justice BV Nagarathna

In a candid speech on Saturday, Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna took a dim view of Governors of states being involved in litigation before the constitutional courts..Justice Nagarathna called for Governors to act in line with the Constitution, rather than having to be told what to do and what not to. She said,"The recent trend has been that the Governor of a state is becoming a point of litigation because of either omission in assenting to bills or other actions which they would take. This is not a healthy trend under the Constitution to (have to) bring the actions or omissions of the Governor of a state before consideration before constitutional courts. Though it is called a gubernatorial post, it is a serious constitutional post, and Governors must act as per the Constitution so this kind of litigation reduces. It is quite embarrassing for Governors to be told to do or not do a thing. The time has come where they would be now told, I suppose, to do their duties as per the Constitution.".States increasingly moving Supreme Court over political issues: Attorney General R Venkataramani.The apex court judge was speaking during the introductory session of the Courts and the Constitution Conference organised by NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.Her remarks assume significance at a time when the Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the conduct of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, and the States of Kerala, Telangana and Punjab moving court in recent times against their respective Governors..Justice Nagarathna opined that the top court has been continuing to strengthen the democratic foundation of the country.She heaped praise on former Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit for constituting Constitution Benches swiftly in key and long pending cases.On her dissent in the demonetisation case, she revealed how she was moved by the plight of the common man post the move to withdraw the 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 appeared to concede that the Supreme Court had 'watered down a bit' its recent judgment that held that the Enforcement Directorate must furnish written grounds of arrest to persons arrested in money laundering cases.On medical termination of pregnancy cases, she opined that the Supreme Court's pendulum went from one end to another on reproductive rights concerns."The debate with regard to pro-life and pro-choice arose. I would not like to speak much about it, but I will only say we should not polarise the debate like this. Ultimately it depends on the facts of the case, why has the lady come to court, beyond the time? It is a very difficult decision for a women to terminate a pregnancy. She has to be psychologically ready...it is not a simple abortion right (issue)."In conclusion, she spoke of how the Supreme Court 'had a metamorphic journey in 2023'."The strength of courts come from their role in dispensing justice," she said and called for everyone to re-dedicate themselves to the Constitution..Retired Supreme Court of India judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Telangana High Court Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court of Nepal judge Sapana Malla, and Pakistani Supreme Court judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah also spoke during the event.