<p>New Delhi: The Centre on Monday opposed before the Supreme Court a plea by Kerala to withdraw its petition, challenging delay by the Governor in grant of assent to bills passed by the state legislature.</p><p>Attorney General R Venkantaramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar that the court should await the decision on the reference of the President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills. </p><p>Mehta said the current petition could also be referred for tagging along with the presidential reference.</p>.Secret recording of conversations of spouses can be used in matrimonial cases: SC.<p>Senior advocate K K Venugopal for the Kerala government submitted that he would withdraw the plea, as the issue had become infructuous against the backdrop of the April 8 Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Tamil Nadu Governor.</p><p>Calling the opposition to the withdrawal of the pleas as "strange", Venugopal said, "Why is the court hesitant for the state to withdraw the petition? There has to be some rationale...this only means both parties will charge money." </p><p>To this, the bench remarked, "We will make it very clear, tentatively there can't be an objection to withdrawal."</p><p>The court, however, deferred the matter to July 25, after the Attorney General sought time.</p><p>On April 22, Venkataramani had told the court that the April 8 judgment in the case of Tamil Nadu Governor on pending bills does not cover the facts in the plea filed by the Kerala government over the delay in clearing the bills by the Governor. The apex court had said that it would examine whether the recent judgment on a plea by Tamil Nadu fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills covered the issues raised by the Kerala government.</p><p>Kerala government had earlier moved the apex court claiming inaction on the part of the Governor in relation with several bills passed by the state legislature and presented to the Governor for his assent under Article 200 of the Constitution.</p><p>In its plea, the state government sought a declaration that the actions of the Governor in withholding Bills indefinitely without exercising discretionary power under Article 200 of the Constitution are "contumacious, arbitrary, despotic and antithetical to the democratic values, ideals of the Cabinet form of Government, and principles of democratic Constitutionalism and federalism".</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Centre on Monday opposed before the Supreme Court a plea by Kerala to withdraw its petition, challenging delay by the Governor in grant of assent to bills passed by the state legislature.</p><p>Attorney General R Venkantaramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar that the court should await the decision on the reference of the President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills. </p><p>Mehta said the current petition could also be referred for tagging along with the presidential reference.</p>.Secret recording of conversations of spouses can be used in matrimonial cases: SC.<p>Senior advocate K K Venugopal for the Kerala government submitted that he would withdraw the plea, as the issue had become infructuous against the backdrop of the April 8 Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Tamil Nadu Governor.</p><p>Calling the opposition to the withdrawal of the pleas as "strange", Venugopal said, "Why is the court hesitant for the state to withdraw the petition? There has to be some rationale...this only means both parties will charge money." </p><p>To this, the bench remarked, "We will make it very clear, tentatively there can't be an objection to withdrawal."</p><p>The court, however, deferred the matter to July 25, after the Attorney General sought time.</p><p>On April 22, Venkataramani had told the court that the April 8 judgment in the case of Tamil Nadu Governor on pending bills does not cover the facts in the plea filed by the Kerala government over the delay in clearing the bills by the Governor. The apex court had said that it would examine whether the recent judgment on a plea by Tamil Nadu fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills covered the issues raised by the Kerala government.</p><p>Kerala government had earlier moved the apex court claiming inaction on the part of the Governor in relation with several bills passed by the state legislature and presented to the Governor for his assent under Article 200 of the Constitution.</p><p>In its plea, the state government sought a declaration that the actions of the Governor in withholding Bills indefinitely without exercising discretionary power under Article 200 of the Constitution are "contumacious, arbitrary, despotic and antithetical to the democratic values, ideals of the Cabinet form of Government, and principles of democratic Constitutionalism and federalism".</p>
