The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised a fundamental question on the country’s constitutional framework, asking whether India has lived up to the expectations of the Constitution framers who envisaged harmony and consultation between governors and state governments.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, made the observation during hearings on the Presidential Reference concerning the role of governors and the president in dealing with Bills passed by state legislatures.
Submissions of the Centre
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, referred to the Constituent Assembly debates to underline that the post of governor was never intended to serve as “political asylum” but was created with defined constitutional powers and responsibilities. He argued that detailed deliberations in the Assembly shaped the office of governor to balance the federal structure of the Constitution.
The Centre, in its written submissions, warned that imposing judicially mandated timelines on the president or governors to act on Bills would upset the separation of powers and create “constitutional disorder.”
The Court’s Concerns
The bench is examining whether Constitutional courts can impose such timelines after questions arose from delays—some dating back to 2020—in governors’ consideration of Bills. On Tuesday, the bench had already flagged concerns about long pendency of legislation before governors, stressing that judicial limitations prevented courts from stepping into the legislative domain.
Chief Justice Gavai clarified that the court’s current deliberations will be confined to the constitutional questions raised in the Presidential Reference and not on the April 8 ruling in the Tamil Nadu case, where the Supreme Court had for the first time directed that the president decide on Bills reserved by a governor within three months.
The Presidential Reference
The matter stems from President Droupadi Murmu’s decision in May to invoke Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking the apex court’s advisory opinion on 14 questions regarding the powers of the governor and the president under Articles 200 and 201. These provisions deal with gubernatorial discretion in assenting to Bills and the procedure when such Bills are reserved for presidential consideration.
The court noted that it was exercising its advisory jurisdiction, not appellate powers, while addressing preliminary objections from the governments of Tamil Nadu and Kerala on maintainability of the reference.
Background
On April 8, the Supreme Court had directed that the president must decide on Bills referred by governors within three months. That ruling came amid a political tussle in Tamil Nadu, where multiple Bills passed by the Assembly had been stalled with the governor or the president.
