Can’t they express opinion? Supreme Court on State Assemblies passing resolutions against Central laws

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed a prima facie view that resolutions passed by State Legislative Assemblies against Parliamentary legislation are mere “opinion of the members of the Assembly” with no force of law (Samta Andolan Samiti v. Union of India)..A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde observed that such resolutions do not exhort the public to disobey the law, instead they only ask Parliament to reconsider the law..“This is the opinion of the members of the Assembly. They have only asked the Parliament to consider its opinion and abrogate the law passed. It has no force of law. They are not asking people to disobey law. Don't they have jurisdiction to express their opinion. They are not disobeying any law,” CJI Bobde remarked..The Bench which also comprised Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian was hearing a petition by Samta Andola Smiti challenging the competence of State Assemblies to adopt 'resolutions' against Central statutes like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Farm laws.The plea highlighted instances of resolutions passed by the State Legislative Assemblies of Rajasthan, Kerala, Punjab and West Bengal against the CAA and Farm Laws, claiming that the same was a violation of fundamental rights of citizens..When the matter came up for hearing on Friday, CJI Bobde asked the petitioner’s counsel Soumya Chakraborty why such resolutions were being objected to.Highlighting a resolution passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly, Chakraborty said that the Assembly cannot casually delve into discussions on subjects over which it has no legislative competence..“Don't they have jurisdiction to express their opinion? They are not disobeying any law. Is State Legislature a person within the meaning of ‘person’ or ‘citizen’?", the Court queried..Chakraborty said that there are 60 petitions against the CAA pending before the Supreme Court, and that as per law, a resolution cannot be passed on issues which are pending before courts for judicial adjudication.The Court asked Chakraborty whether or not this issue has been considered before. The counsel replied in the negative..“There must be some precedent. Check up and tell me. Do some research and let us know. We don't want to create more problems than solving,” the CJI said, adjourning the matter.