New Delhi: Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Thursday cautioned that judicial activism should not turn into judicial terrorism during the presidential reference hearing, which examined whether courts can set timelines for governors and the president to act on bills passed by state assemblies.
The remark came as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, emphasized that experienced elected representatives should not be undermined. “We never said anything about elected officials. Judicial activism should never become judicial terrorism or judicial adventurism,” the CJI responded.
The bench also included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar. Mehta continued his arguments, citing various Supreme Court verdicts on the powers of governors, as the hearing entered its third consecutive day.
At the outset, Mehta expressed anticipation for senior advocate Kapil Sibal’s submissions, highlighting his extensive public life experience, governance background, and tenure as a parliamentarian. He noted that modern-day elected officials are directly accountable to voters, unlike 20-25 years ago, when public scrutiny was limited.
Mehta further stated that “withholding assent” is a complete constitutional function of the governor under Article 200. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court clarified that governors cannot send bills to the president for consideration upon second presentation by a state assembly.
While addressing preliminary objections raised by the Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments regarding the maintainability of the presidential reference, the Court emphasized that it is exercising its advisory, not appellate, jurisdiction.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) to seek the Court’s opinion on whether judicial orders could impose timelines on presidential discretion concerning bills passed by state assemblies. The Centre argued in written submissions that imposing fixed timelines on governors or the president would grant one organ powers not constitutionally vested, potentially causing “constitutional disorder.”
Earlier, on April 8, the apex court, in a matter concerning Tamil Nadu Assembly bills, directed that the president must decide on bills referred by a governor within three months of receipt. In her five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court, seeking clarity on the powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 regarding state legislature bills.
