- The government opposed imposing timelines on the President and Governors for clearing bills
- The Supreme Court had ordered a three-month deadline for the President and one month for Governors
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued timelines violate the separation of powers and constitutional intent
The government has warned against imposing a timeline on the President and Governors for clearing bills, differing with an earlier Supreme Court order. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had in April prescribed a three-month deadline for the President and one month for Governors to decide on the bills passed by the legislature.
Such timelines would amount to an organ of the government usurping powers that are not vested in it, thereby upsetting the delicate separation of powers, the government said in a written submission to the top court, warning that it will lead to "constitutional chaos".
"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," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said in his submission.
Though there may be "some limited problems in implementation" of the assent process, these cannot justify "reducing the higher office of the Governor to a subordinate one," said Mr Mehta.
He argued that the offices of the Governor and President are "politically complete" and represent "higher ideals of democratic governance". Any alleged lapses should be redressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, not through "unwarranted judicial" interventions, he said.
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor can give assent to the bills presented to him by the legislature, withhold or reserve it for the consideration of the President. He can also send it back to the House for reconsideration, but if passed again, the Governor shall not withhold assent. The Governor can also choose to reserve the bill for the President's consideration if it appears to be at odds with the Constitution, directive principles of state policy, or is of national importance.
In its April 12 order in a case related to Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court had sought to regulate this process and ordered that the Constitutional heads follow a timeline to clear the pending bills.
It 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."
The judgment drew pushback, with President Droupadi Murmu raising queries to the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of such timelines. Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President posed 14 questions to the top court, seeking its opinion on the powers of the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislatures.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai in July fixed a time schedule to hear the Presidential reference case and decide on the questions referred to it by the President. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, had asked the Centre and states to submit their written submissions by August 12.
The five-judge bench headed by the CJI will begin hearing the case on August 19.
