The Centre has warned the Supreme Court that fixing a timeline for Governors may create “constitutional chaos,” stressing that even under Article 142, the Court cannot amend or override the original intent of the Constitution makers.
The government cautioned against setting deadlines for the President and Governors to clear bills, opposing a previous Supreme Court directive.
In April, Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had established a three-month timeframe for the President and a one-month period for Governors to act on bills passed by the legislature.
The government argued that such timelines would lead to one branch of government overstepping its authority, disrupting the crucial separation of powers.
In a written submission to the Supreme Court, it warned that this could result in “constitutional chaos.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated,
“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,”
While acknowledging that there may be “some limited problems in implementation” of the assent process, he emphasized that these issues do not warrant diminishing the Governor’s role.
He asserted that the offices of the Governor and President embody “higher ideals of democratic governance.” Any alleged shortcomings should be addressed through political and constitutional means rather than through “unwarranted judicial” interventions.
According to Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor can either give assent to bills from the legislature, withhold it, or reserve it for Presidential consideration.
The Governor may also return the bill for reconsideration; however, if the legislature passes it again, the Governor must not withhold assent.
Additionally, the Governor can reserve a bill for the President if it conflicts with the Constitution, the directive principles of state policy, or is of national significance.
Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Remove Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi
In its April 12 ruling related to Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court aimed to regulate this process by mandating that constitutional heads adhere to a timeline for addressing pending bills.
The court ordered,
“We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs… and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.”
This judgment faced opposition, with President Droupadi Murmu questioning the constitutionality of the imposed timelines. Under Article 143, the President submitted 14 questions to the Supreme Court regarding the powers of the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 in relation to bills passed by state legislatures.
Also Read: Tamil Nadu Gov. Moves Supreme Court to Lift Stay on Janmam Land Development
In July, a bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai scheduled a hearing for the Presidential reference case to address the questions raised by the President.
This bench, which includes Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, requested the Centre and states to provide written submissions by August 12.
The five-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice will commence hearings on August 19.