Supreme Court Faces Constitutional Dilemma Over Timelines for Presidential Assent on State Bills

Centre's Stance on Timelines for Bill Approval

New Delhi: The Central Government has argued before the Supreme Court that enforcing fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on state Assembly bills could lead to a breach of constitutional order. The Centre contends that allowing one branch of government to assume powers not granted by the Constitution could result in a 'constitutional disorder'.

In written submissions related to a Presidential Reference, the Centre emphasized that the inaction of one governmental organ does not justify another organ overstepping its constitutional boundaries. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, stated that imposing such timelines would disrupt the balance established by the Constitution and undermine the rule of law.

Mehta's note highlighted that any perceived shortcomings should be resolved through established constitutional mechanisms, such as electoral accountability and legislative oversight, rather than through judicial intervention. He argued that Article 142 does not grant the court the authority to create a concept of 'deemed assent', which would fundamentally alter the legislative process.

The note further elaborated that the roles of the governor and president are politically significant and should be addressed through political channels rather than judicial ones. Mehta challenged the Supreme Court's decision, asserting that Articles 200 and 201 do not specify any timelines for the governor's or president's actions regarding state bills.

He pointed out that the Constitution explicitly mentions time limits for certain decisions but does not impose them where flexibility is intended. To impose such limitations through judicial interpretation would effectively amend the Constitution.

The note also stated that despite the presence of checks and balances, certain areas remain exclusive to specific branches of government, including the powers of the governor and president. The assent given by the governor is a unique prerogative that is not subject to judicial review, as it possesses a legislative character.

The Supreme Court has scheduled hearings for the Presidential Reference, starting from August 19, with a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai. The court has instructed both the Centre and the states to submit their written arguments.

The bench will first address preliminary objections raised by states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu regarding the validity of the Presidential Reference. The court has outlined a timeline for hearings, with the Centre and supporting states scheduled for August 19, 20, 21, and 26, while opposing states will be heard on August 28 and September 2, 3, and 9.

In May, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on whether judicial orders could impose timelines on the president's discretion regarding state assembly bills. This inquiry followed an April 8 ruling that mandated the president to decide on bills reserved by the governor within three months.

The President's reference included 14 questions regarding the powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 in relation to state legislature bills. The earlier ruling clarified that governors must act on bills as advised by the council of ministers and that state governments could approach the Supreme Court if the president withheld assent.