Stalemate over Budget session ends after State moves Telangana HC

The stalemate over the Governor’s permission for the State Budget session was resolved on Monday with the intervention of the Telangana High Court, thus clearing the uncertainty that hung over the session slated to begin on February 3.

The solution to the situation, which could have led to an unprecedented constitutional crisis, came after the State government moved the High Court, seeking the court’s directions to Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan for giving her approval for introduction of the State Budget for the financial year 2023-2024

The court granted a lunch motion at the request of Advocate General BS Prasad with a bench comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N Tukaramji hearing Supreme Court advocate and senior counsel Dushyant Dave on behalf of the State government at 1 pm. Dave told the court that the Governor ought to give her assent to the State government’s proposal for introduction of the Budget as per Constitutional provisions.

According to Article 202 of the Constitution, the Governor should see that the annual financial



statement is laid before the Assembly, he said.

With Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asking why the judiciary was being dragged into the controversy and whether the Governor was amenable to the jurisdiction of the court under the writ of mandamus, Dave, citing the Supreme Court judgement in the Shamsheer Singh case, replied that the court had powers to interfere when the Governor’s acts were contrary to Constitutional provisions. He informed the court that the State was also not happy in approaching the court

With just three days left for the session, the State was actually forced to move the court, he said, seeking directions from the court to the gubernatorial office to facilitate the introduction of the budget.

Dave also made it clear that the State government respected the Constitutional position of the Governor, following which the Chief Justice intervened to say that both sides could work out a solution and that it was inappropriate that a controversy was arising between two Constitutional bodies.