The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that state governments cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the actions of the President or Governors in dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, is currently hearing a Presidential reference under Article 143(1) on this issue.
Centre’s Position
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that:
- States do not have fundamental rights under the Constitution, and hence cannot maintain a writ petition under Article 32.
- Actions of the President and Governors in assenting to, or withholding assent from, bills are not justiciable.
- No directions can be issued by the court against the President or Governors due to the protection under Article 361, which grants them immunity from judicial proceedings for acts done in discharge of their duties.
Mehta clarified that while the reference questions have been debated in prior proceedings, the President has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion to clarify the exact legal position for future instances.
Courtroom Exchange
The Solicitor General also referred to the April 8 verdict relating to Tamil Nadu, where the Supreme Court had held that states could approach the apex court if Governors failed to act on bills within a reasonable timeline.
Chief Justice Gavai remarked that while the bench would not comment on the earlier two-judge verdict, “the Governor would not be justified in sitting over a bill for six months.”
Mehta, however, insisted that constitutional inaction by one organ cannot justify judicial directions to another. To this, CJI Gavai retorted:
“Yes. We know what your argument is? If this court does not decide the matter for 10 years, would it be justified for the President to issue an order?”
Larger Constitutional Question
The hearing is part of the Presidential reference made in May 2024, when President Droupadi Murmu sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether courts could impose timelines on the President or Governors in exercising their discretion while dealing with bills passed by state legislatures.
Earlier, on August 26, the bench had raised concerns whether the judiciary would remain “powerless” if a Governor indefinitely delayed assent to bills, and whether such a delay could even block crucial money bills.
The matter has also seen arguments from BJP-ruled states, which defended the autonomy of Governors and the President, contending that “assent to a law cannot be given by court” and cautioning that the judiciary cannot become “a pill for every disease.”
What Lies Ahead
The Constitution Bench will now decide:
- Whether states have the locus standi to challenge gubernatorial or presidential actions under Article 32.
- Whether the judiciary can fix timelines for constitutional functionaries in dealing with bills.
- The scope of judicial review, if any, over delays or refusals of assent.
