The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned whether constitutional courts could remain powerless if constitutional functionaries, such as Governors, fail to discharge their duties or indefinitely delay action on bills passed by state legislatures.
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, posed the query while hearing a presidential reference under Article 143(1) on whether courts can impose timelines on Governors and the President in dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that if Governors delayed decisions on bills, the resolution should lie in “political dialogue” rather than judicial intervention.
“Every problem in this country may not have solutions here in the court,” he submitted, suggesting that state governments often engage with Governors, the Prime Minister, or the President to resolve such deadlocks. He underscored the role of statesmanship and political maturity, stressing that “nowhere in the Constitution is a timeline prescribed for Governors or the President” unless expressly provided.
Mehta cautioned against judicial overreach: “This court can ask Parliament to enact a law fixing a timeline, but it cannot be done through a judgment.”
CJI Gavai pressed further:
“If constitutional functionaries do not discharge their functions without any reason, can the hands of a constitutional court be tied? If there is any wrong, there has to be a remedy. This court is the custodian of the Constitution.”
Justice Surya Kant echoed the concern, observing:
“If there is inaction on the part of the Governor and an aggrieved state approaches the court, can judicial review of such inaction be completely barred?”
Justice Narasimha also asked: “If you say we don’t have the power at all, how do you make the Constitution work?”
During the hearing, when Mehta warned against undermining elected representatives, CJI Gavai clarified:
“We never said anything against elected people. I have always said judicial activism should never become judicial terrorism or judicial adventurism.”
The reference arises from the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, where the Court, for the first time, prescribed a three-month timeline for the President to decide on bills reserved for her consideration by Governors.
Subsequently, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1), seeking the Court’s opinion on whether such judicial directions fixing timelines are constitutionally permissible.
As the debate continues, the Court is weighing the balance between judicial interpretation and political process, with CJI Gavai reiterating that remedies must exist when constitutional duties are not performed.
