Today, On 21st August, CJI Gavai said if the Supreme Court, as an organ of the Constitution, must remain powerless and with tied hands while Governors exercise powers under Article 200 amid heated arguments on the Presidential Reference issue.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court questioned whether constitutional courts can be restricted if constitutional officials, such as Governors, fail to perform their duties or if there is inaction regarding bills passed by state assemblies.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai raised these issues after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, suggested that political resolutions should be sought at the state level when Governors delay bills, rather than relying on judicial intervention.
The bench, which also included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, is reviewing a presidential reference regarding the court’s authority to set deadlines for Governors and the President to act on state assembly bills.
The bench emphasized that if a wrong exists, a remedy should be available.
CJI Gavai inquired,
“If constitutional functionaries do not discharge their functions without any reason, can the hands of a constitutional court be tied?”
He said,
“No, no, but if there is a wrong, there has to be a solution. This court is an organ of the constitution… If a constitutional functionaries does not discharge functions without valid reasons.. should the court say we are powerless and hands are tied!”
Mehta responded that not all issues can be resolved by courts, and that in a democracy, dialogue should take precedence.
Justice Kant added,
“If there is any inaction on the part of Governor, which can vary from state to state, and if an aggrieved State approaches the court, can the judicial review of such inaction be completely barred? Tell us what can be the solution?”
Mehta called for “some flexibility,” noting that if a Governor is delaying bills, political solutions can often be found. He pointed out that it is not common for chief ministers to immediately go to court, as discussions often occur between the chief minister, Governor, Prime Minister, and President to resolve issues.
He highlighted that for decades, such practices have been used to settle disputes, with delegations meeting with constitutional authorities to find a compromise. He stressed the importance of statesmanship and political maturity in resolving conflicts between state governments and Governors, who represent the Centre.
Mehta argued that the Constitution does not specify a timeline for the Governor or President to act on bills, and where a timeline is mentioned, it is clearly stated.
CJI Gavai responded,
“If there is any wrong, there has to be a remedy. This court is the custodian of the constitution and it will have to interpret the constitution by giving it literal meaning.”
Justice Kant stated,
“If the power of interpretation vests in the Supreme Court, then interpretation of law has to be tried by the court.”
Mehta remarked that justiciability is distinct from amending the Constitution.
He argued for a degree of flexibility when dealing with constitutional officials and noted that the court has often called upon law officers to perform certain tasks without issuing formal judgments.
He referenced a previous ruling by the court suggesting that Parliament should consider potential amendments to the Constitution.
Mehta elaborated that while the court could recommend a law to set timelines for Governors in handling bills, it cannot mandate this through a court judgment. Justice Narasimha cautioned against an extreme stance that denies the court’s power to ensure the Constitution functions effectively.
Mehta also referenced a prior verdict from April regarding the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which led to the current presidential reference. He stated that the verdicts require the President and Governor to provide reasons for their decisions and that if they fail to adhere to a timeline, states may approach the Supreme Court or high courts.
Mehta explained,
“This means one institution is directing the President to act within a specific timeframe. I respect the directions and there may be justification, but it can’t confer jurisdiction,”
The proceedings are ongoing. Earlier, CJI Gavai remarked that judicial activism should avoid crossing into what he termed “judicial terrorism.”
This comment followed Mehta’s assertion that experienced elected officials should not be undermined.
The CJI stated,
“We never said anything about the elected people. I have always said that judicial activism should never become judicial terrorism or judicial adventurism,”
The hearing is set to continue at 2 pm.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to seek clarification from the Supreme Court regarding whether judicial orders could impose timelines on the President’s discretion when dealing with state assembly bills.
Background
The Presidential Reference followed the April 8 Supreme Court ruling which held that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on Bills passed by State legislatures. Though Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Court said Governors must act within a reasonable time and cannot stall the democratic process.
The Court also held that under Article 201, the President must decide on Bills within three months. If delayed, reasons must be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.
The exact words of the April 8 judgment were:
“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.”
President Murmu later sent 14 questions to the Court, asking whether the judiciary could impose such deadlines and whether the concept of “deemed assent” was constitutionally valid.
While the Centre backs the Reference, arguing that Governors’ powers cannot be curtailed by judicial timelines, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have asked the Court to dismiss it as not maintainable.
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | SPL. REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills