Centre Questions Judicial Authority
Earlier this year, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that Governors must act promptly on bills, and for the first time, it directed that the President should take a decision within three months on bills referred by Governors. The President later referred the matter to a larger five-judge bench, seeking clarity on whether such timelines could be legally enforced.
Mehta argued that the judiciary “does not hold answers to all problems in a democracy” and warned that if any organ assumes powers not granted by the Constitution, it could lead to “constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers.”
The Centre stressed that gubernatorial and presidential assent is not just a procedural step but a unique constitutional prerogative. Calling it a “plenary, non-justiciable power,” the Solicitor General maintained that judicial standards cannot be applied to the process of granting or withholding assent.
“The blended and unique nature of assent clothes it with a constitutional character whereby no judicially manageable standards exist,” Mehta said. He added that judicial review in this domain could destabilize the institutional balance and “convert the Indian Constitution into one which postulates supremacy of the judiciary.”
Governors as National Representatives
The Centre also dismissed the notion that Governors are outsiders to the states they serve. “Governors are not to be treated as aliens or foreigners,” Mehta said, describing them as “representatives of national interest and democratic will” within the federal structure.
This perspective aligns with the government’s stand that Governors play a role beyond politics, embodying the unity of the Union and the states. The submission emphasized that while these positions are political, they are also rooted in democratic legitimacy since appointments are made by elected representatives.
Limits of Judicial Review
The government pointed out that where the Constitution intends to set time limits for decisions, it does so explicitly. Since Articles 200 and 201, which govern gubernatorial and presidential assent to bills, contain no such timeframes, the judiciary cannot impose them through interpretation.
Mehta further clarified that even under Article 142, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders for “complete justice,” the court cannot override constitutional provisions. “Exercise of Article 142 is not a supervening judicial power which can run contrary to the Constitution,” he said.
Separation of Powers at the Core
The Centre underlined that the doctrine of separation of powers is a fundamental feature of India’s Constitution. Allowing the judiciary to dictate timelines for executive functions would, according to the government, breach this principle and undermine democratic accountability.
“Perceived lapses must be addressed through constitutionally sanctioned mechanisms such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, and executive responsibility,” the Solicitor General argued. He added that creating the concept of “deemed assent” could “turn the constitutional and legislative process on its head.”
What Lies Ahead
The five-judge bench is currently hearing arguments and is expected to deliver clarity on the limits of judicial intervention in this sensitive area. Legal experts say the ruling could redefine the relationship between constitutional authorities and determine how future disputes over state bills are resolved.