'A Constitutional Disorder': Centre Challenges SC’s Deadline For Governors, President To Act On State Bills

The Centre has warned the Supreme Court against judicial overreach, opposing its decision to fix a three-month deadline for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by state legislatures, reported The Indian Express.

In written submissions filed on 12 August before a five-judge bench hearing a Presidential reference, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that such judicial directions threaten the separation of powers and risk creating “a constitutional disorder not envisaged by (Constitution) framers.”

Mehta stressed that “gubernatorial assent is a high prerogative, plenary, non-justiciable power” and cannot be subjected to judicially manageable standards.

He maintained that while overlap exists among the executive, legislature, and judiciary, certain zones remain exclusive.

“The high plenary positions of Governors and President fall within that zone,” he said, adding that Governors represent national democratic will and “are thus not to be treated as alien/ foreigner in the federating units of the Union.”

Challenging the April verdict that mandated timelines, Mehta said, “When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits… Since the text of Article 200 or 201 does not provide a specific time limit, no form of judicial review or judicial interpretation can impose the same.”

He warned that “a wide-ranging judicial review of assent procedures… would potentially destabilise the constitutional balance between organs of State” and could create “supremacy of judiciary as a doctrinal principle.”

“Exercise of Article 142 is not a supervening judicial power which can override the constitutional provisions or run contrary to them. The apex court, even under Article 142, is bound by constitutional provisions and principles,” he said.

The Centre insisted that failures of one organ must be addressed through “electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility” and not by courts imposing “deemed assent.”

Also Read: 'Can't Ignore What Happened In Pahalgam': Supreme Court On Plea For Restoration Of J&K Statehood