New Delhi – The central government has opposed the Supreme Court’s directive setting deadlines for the President and state Governors to act on bills passed by legislatures, arguing that such time limits violate the Constitution and could create constitutional disorder.
In a written submission to the apex court, the Centre stated that imposing a fixed timeframe on the President or Governors would amount to the judiciary overstepping its authority, disturbing the balance among the three branches of governance — legislature, executive, and judiciary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that even under the special powers granted to it by Article 142, the Supreme Court cannot amend constitutional provisions. He added that while procedural delays may occur, it does not justify undermining the dignity of high constitutional offices such as that of the Governor.
According to Mehta, the President and Governors embody the highest ideals of democratic governance, and any shortcomings in their functioning should be addressed through political and constitutional means rather than judicial intervention.
What the Constitution Says
Under Article 200, a Governor has four options upon receiving a bill:
- Grant assent to the bill.
- Withhold assent.
- Return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration (but if passed again, the Governor must give assent).
- Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration if it involves constitutional or national importance.
In April 2024, the Supreme Court ordered that the President must decide on a bill within three months, and a Governor within one month.
President Seeks Court’s Opinion
Questioning this directive, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143 to seek the court’s opinion, submitting 14 questions seeking clarification on the powers of the President and Governors.
Hearing Scheduled
A bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai has scheduled hearings on the matter. The Centre and state governments were directed to file their written submissions by August 12.
