New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday assured the Kerala government that its suit against the Center raising the issue of cap on net borrowing will be considered for listing before a five-judge Constitution bench.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta took note of the arguments of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state government, that the matter was urgent and should be listed after the summer vacation.
“We will look into the listing and take a decision,” Justice Khanna told Sibal.
On April 1, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Vishwanathan had referred the suit filed by the Kerala government raising the issue of net borrowing limit to a five-judge Constitution bench.
However, the apex court had refused to grant any interim injunction to Kerala and said the state had secured "substantial relief" during the pendency of the interim application.
The Kerala government has accused the Center of interfering in the exercise of its "special, autonomous and absolute powers" to regulate the state's finances by imposing limits on borrowings.
While referring the case to a larger bench, the top court had referred to Article 293 of the Constitution, which deals with borrowing by states, and said this provision has not been subject to any authoritative interpretation by the top court so far.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta took note of the arguments of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state government, that the matter was urgent and should be listed after the summer vacation.
“We will look into the listing and take a decision,” Justice Khanna told Sibal.
On April 1, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Vishwanathan had referred the suit filed by the Kerala government raising the issue of net borrowing limit to a five-judge Constitution bench.
However, the apex court had refused to grant any interim injunction to Kerala and said the state had secured "substantial relief" during the pendency of the interim application.
The Kerala government has accused the Center of interfering in the exercise of its "special, autonomous and absolute powers" to regulate the state's finances by imposing limits on borrowings.
While referring the case to a larger bench, the top court had referred to Article 293 of the Constitution, which deals with borrowing by states, and said this provision has not been subject to any authoritative interpretation by the top court so far.
