New Delhi [India], August 16 (ANI): The Central government opposed the idea of the Supreme Court setting deadlines for Governors or the President to act on state Bills, asserting that such matters required political answers rather than judicial intervention.
The submissions were filed through Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta ahead of the Supreme Court’s hearing on the Presidential reference matter, scheduled from August 19.
Pertinently, in its submissions, the Centre has stated that merely because there are some issues with regard to the procedure and the powers of the Governor, in terms of his/her assent to Bills, the same cannot result in reducing the highly positioned gubernatorial office into a subservient one.
“The perceived issues, if any, deserve political answers and not necessarily judicial”, the Centre has said in its submissions filed through the Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta.
The submissions further stated that the judiciary does not hold keys or solutions for every conundrum that may arise in a democratic polity, “The Framers of the Constitution thus advisedly left some questions outside the judicial realm”, it adds.
Moreover, the Centre has asserted that while Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to do “complete justice” on any issue pending before it, this power is not absolute or above the Constitution itself. Since the Constitution creates and defines the judiciary, Article 142 cannot be used to override or amend its provisions.
Additionally, it submitted that the judiciary, even under Article 142, must operate within constitutional boundaries. The Centre further contended that allowing the Court to act beyond these limits would disrupt the balance of power among the organs of the State and undermine democratic governance.
“The Constitution creates the judiciary and vests it with the powers; thus, Article 142 cannot be used to undo the dictates of the creator itself… The Apex Court, even under Article 142, is bound by constitutional provisions and principles. One organ of the State cannot arrogate to itself the core functions vested under the Constitution to another organ. Such arrogation would create a situation where one organ could elevate itself above the other in the absence of similar power in the remaining organs, and would strike at the core of democratic governance.”, the Centre has said.
Regarding the Governor’s discretion in granting assent to Bills, the Central government argued that the Governor is not strictly bound by the aid and advice of the state government, and may independently decide to approve, reject, return, or refer a Bill to the President, even without any recommendation from the state legislature.
“The independent application of mind is required to ensure that the Governor’s office is not reduced to a mere formal ‘post office’. One of the constitutional purposes behind the office of the governor was to act as a check against hasty legislation by the States. Given that background, the Governor’s assent cannot be a mechanical process and must involve application of mind, especially where questions of repugnancy and constitutional compliance are concerned”, the Centre added.
On the question of time limits, the Central government said that the Constitution purposely does not set deadlines for the Governor or the President to act on bills, as Articles 200 and 201 confer wide discretion on them to consider the Bills without any time-bound compulsion.
“There is no procedure prescribed under the Constitution to import such limits without effectively amending the Constitution, which is a function reserved exclusively for the constituent power of the Parliament under Article 368”, the Centre has argued. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
