Last Updated:
The submission comes in response to a SC order in April that prescribed a three-month timeline for the President and a one-month window for Governors to decide on pending bills
Supreme Court of India | PTI Image
The Centre has opposed the idea of setting fixed deadlines for the President and Governors to clear bills, cautioning that such a move would disrupt the constitutional balance of power.
The submission comes in response to a Supreme Court order in April that prescribed a three-month timeline for the President and a one-month window for Governors to decide on pending legislation.
Recommended Stories
“Even under its extraordinary powers vested in Article 142, the Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution or defeat the intent of the Constitution makers, provided there are no such procedural mandates in the constitutional text,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued.
In its written note to the court, the government warned that imposing such timelines would amount to “constitutional chaos” by allowing one organ of the state to assume powers not vested in it.
While acknowledging that there may be “some limited problems in implementation” of the current system, Mehta said those concerns cannot justify “reducing the higher office of the Governor to a subordinate one.”
He maintained that the President and Governors represent “higher ideals of democratic governance” and that any alleged lapses should be addressed through political and constitutional processes, not “unwarranted judicial” interference.
Under Article 200, a Governor may give assent to a bill, withhold it, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s approval.
Once a bill is passed again by the legislature, the Governor is bound to assent, but can still reserve it for Presidential consideration if it raises constitutional or national concerns.
The Supreme Court’s April 12 ruling, delivered in a case concerning Tamil Nadu, attempted to regulate this process by introducing deadlines for Constitutional heads.
The order drew objections, with President Droupadi Murmu formally seeking the Court’s opinion under Article 143 on whether such timelines were constitutional.
In July, a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai scheduled hearings on the Presidential reference for August 19.
The bench, which also includes Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, has asked both the Centre and states to file their written submissions by August 12.
view comments
Read More
