New Delhi, Aug 19 (PTI) The Centre on Tuesday opposed in the Supreme Court imposition of fixed timelines on governors and President for taking decisions on bills passed by state legislatures, saying such constraints were “consciously omitted” by the framers of the Constitution.
Challenging the April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for grant of assent to bills, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed a five judge Constitution bench headed by Chief justice B R Gavai that the judgement tied the hands of President who was “virtually robbed of her (discretionary) powers”.
“You bind the hands of the President. The highest consideration of whether to assent or not must remain open,” he said.
While the attorney general was assisting in his personal capacity, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Centre before the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar.
The top court began hearing the presidential reference, seeking opinion on whether President and governors can be legally bound by specific timeframes while exercising their constitutional role in assenting to, or returning, bills.
Mehta urged the bench to examine the larger constitutional question — the role of President and governors in India’s federal structure.
“When we are making or interpreting a Constitution, we do it idealistically,” Mehta said.
He added, “The forefathers of the Constitution were visionary and foresaw potential abuse of provisions. But every problem does not warrant judicial intervention.” Mehta said there was no top court decision on the questions raised in the reference so far.
“Presidential reference under Article 143(1) does not invite this court to ‘sit in appeal’ over State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 481 and rather, it seeks independent questions of constitutional law of considerable public importance arising out of Articles 200, 201, 142, 143, 145(3) and 361,” he said.
He referred to the constituent assembly debates and historical background of certain constitutional schemes to highlight the framers of the Constitution debated and decided not to fix any timelines for governors and President.
Under the 1915 Act, Mehta said, there was no provision for returning bills and the 1935 Government of India Act, however, introduced a measure of discretion for “Governor-General”, including sending back bills on grounds such as repugnancy or violation of fundamental rights.
He said the Constituent Assembly explicitly considered and rejected proposals for rigid timelines.
“At one stage, the draft suggested that a bill be assented to ‘not later than six weeks’, later changed to ‘as soon as possible’,” Mehta said, citing the intervention of B R Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution.
The CJI, however, said some members in the constituent assembly had in fact argued for reasonable timelines, pointing out “even six weeks seemed too long”.
However, the law officer said the “idea was not to bind the highest constitutional functionaries” by rigid deadlines.
“The conscious omission of a timeline was deliberate,” he said.
Mehta argued a system where the highest functionaries were expected to discharge their duties legally and with constitutional morality was followed in the country.
“Binding them down with fixed periods would undermine the vision of the framers,” he said.
Mehta continued, “President has the right to assent or withhold assent when a bill is first presented. However, if he returns the bill and the house passes it again, President is bound to give assent. There is no ambiguity on this point.” President, he said, while described as a “nominal head” during debates, was nonetheless an elected constitutional authority.
“Unlike the Governor-General, President functions on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. That distinction must be respected,” Mehta said.
The attorney general called the April 8 verdict a “judicial overreach into the legislative domain”.
Venkataramani said the verdict effectively rewrote constitutional provisions and curtailed the discretionary space available to Governor and President.
The AG said in the Tamil Nadu judgment, the court “entered into the legislative domain” and suggested President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 if doubts arose on a bill.
“Can the court go to the extent where it says, let me take pen and paper and rewrite the Constitution,” he asked.
He said the judgment virtually bound President and governors to act mechanically on the aid and advice of state governments, stripping them of independent constitutional application of mind.
“President is being told not to look at executive policy. Governor and President are virtually robbed of their discretion,” he said.
He referred to Article 145 and said it stipulated the constitutional questions of substantial importance to be heard by at least a five-judge bench.
Article 145 mandates a minimum of five judges to decide any case involving a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution or for hearing any reference.
The AG maintained the Tamil Nadu verdict breached the mandate.
“If there are multiple, conflicting judgments of smaller benches, then such matters must necessarily go before a larger bench for conclusive authority,” Venkataramani argued.
He said routine matters under Articles 14 and 21 might not attract the mandate, but “issues of working of the Constitution and its integrity” certainly did.
Venkataramani said the Tamil Nadu judgment altered the original meaning of Article 200, which governs gubernatorial assent to bills.
While the AG said President’s constitutional role was being constrained by judicial directions, the SG argued the issue was sui generis (unique), requiring the court’s guidance.
“This has created a constitutional functional problem. Am I bound by the three month deadline? Am I bound by Article 200 directions? Or should all states come to the Supreme Court,” he asked.
(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)
