NEW DELHI: The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that state governments cannot approach the apex court under writ jurisdiction against the actions of the President or Governors in dealing with bills passed by assemblies, claiming violation of fundamental rights.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre before a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, said the President has sought the court’s opinion on whether states can move writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and on the scope of Article 361, which grants immunity to the President and Governors from court proceedings for actions taken in office.
Mehta argued that Article 32 is meant for individuals whose fundamental rights are violated, not for states, which are custodians of their citizens’ rights. He submitted that writ petitions filed by states against the President or Governors are not maintainable, their actions on bills are not justiciable, and no directions can be issued to them.
He also referred to the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict concerning Tamil Nadu, where states were allowed to approach the apex court if governors delayed action on bills. CJI Gavai, however, noted that while the bench would not comment on that judgment, governors cannot indefinitely withhold bills for months.
The bench engaged in sharp exchanges with Mehta, questioning whether constitutional authorities could remain inactive without consequence. CJI Gavai remarked, “If this court does not decide a matter for 10 years, would it justify the President issuing an order?”
The court is examining a Presidential reference filed in May under Article 143(1), seeking clarity on whether courts can set timelines for the President or Governors in dealing with state assembly bills. On August 26, the court had also asked whether governors could indefinitely delay assent, even to money bills, raising concerns over executive inaction.
The hearing remains ongoing.
