New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned whether India has fulfilled the vision of the Constitution’s framers, who envisaged harmony between the governor and the state government, including consultation on key issues between the two power centers.
The observation by a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, came during submissions by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on the Presidential Reference concerning governors’ and the president’s handling of state assembly Bills.
Mehta, representing the Centre, referred to Constituent Assembly debates on the appointment and powers of governors, emphasizing that the role is not a “political asylum” but carries constitutional responsibilities. He noted that detailed discussions on governors’ roles were conducted with the federal structure in mind.
Earlier, the court questioned the Centre and the Attorney General about the long delay in governors’ decisions on Bills passed by assemblies, highlighting the limitations of courts in matters where legislation has been pending since 2020. The bench clarified it would only express legal views, not comment on the April 8 Tamil Nadu case, which set timelines for governors and the president to act on Bills.
Addressing preliminary objections by Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the court stated it would exercise advisory jurisdiction rather than appellate powers.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu sought the court’s opinion under Article 143(1) on whether judicial orders could set timelines for the president when acting on Bills reserved by governors. The Centre’s written submission argued that fixed timelines could amount to one branch of government overstepping its constitutional powers, risking “constitutional disorder.”
On April 8, in the Tamil Nadu matter, the Supreme Court had for the first time prescribed that the president must decide on Bills referred by the governor within three months of receiving them.
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions seeking the court’s opinion on the powers of governors and the president under Articles 200 and 201 in handling Bills passed by state legislatures.
