The Centre has told the Supreme Court that any attempt to impose fixed timelines on the President and state governors to act on bills passed by a state legislature would disturb the constitutional balance and allow one organ of the State to exercise powers never envisaged by the framers of the Constitution.
Responding to a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether such timelines could be introduced, the government argued that creating a mechanism of “deemed assent” or judicially prescribed deadlines would produce a “constitutional disorder” and undermine the doctrine of separation of powers.
“The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said in his written note submitted to the apex court. The Centre warned that a judicial attempt to fix timelines would “dissolve the delicate equilibrium” established by the Constitution and “negate the rule of law”.
The submission added, “If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction … the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers.”
Also read: SC seeks Centre, states’ reply on President’s Bill assent delay
It also emphasised that positions such as the President and governor were “politically plenary” and vested with non-justiciable prerogatives. Any perceived lapses in the exercise of these powers should, it argued, be addressed through political processes such as legislative oversight, democratic consultations and electoral accountability.
The Centre pointed out that Articles 200 and 201, which lay down the president’s and governor’s courses of action after receiving a Bill, “deliberately contain no timelines”, noting that the Constitution imposes specific time limits only where it intends to do so.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the Presidential Reference for preliminary hearings from August 19. The five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, will first hear the objections filed by the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which have questioned the maintainability of the reference.
The court will then hear arguments in support of the reference from August 19 to 26 and submissions opposing it on August 28, September 2, September 3 and September 9. The reference, made under Article 143(1), follows an April verdict of the Supreme Court which held that the President must decide on Bills referred to her by governors within three months of receipt.
That ruling also declared that governors have no discretion in dealing with Bills under Article 200 and are bound by the advice of the council of ministers.
Follow us
