'Constitutional Disorder': Centre Warns SC Against Prescribing Fixed Timelines For Governors & President To Act On Passed Bills

Mumbai: The Union government has warned the Supreme Court that prescribing fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies would amount to one organ of the State arrogating powers not conferred on it by the Constitution, and thereby trigger a “constitutional disorder”.

In written submissions filed in response to a presidential reference under Article 143, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the apex court’s April 8 verdict—which, for the first time, mandated that governors and the president must act within three months on bills placed before them—upset the delicate balance envisaged by the framers. “The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers not vested in it,” Mehta said, stressing that such judicial innovation would be tantamount to amending the Constitution under the guise of interpretation. Article 142, which empowers the Supreme Court to do “complete justice”, he said, is procedural in nature and cannot be used to reallocate functions assigned to high constitutional authorities.

Articles 200 and 201, which govern the options available to governors and the president, deliberately contain no timelines, the Centre said. When the Constitution intended a time bar, it expressly mentioned one; where it consciously left flexibility, the judiciary cannot “read in” a deadline. “Any attempt to fix rigid timelines would render nugatory the intent of the framers,” the government contended. The submissions also emphasised that gubernatorial and presidential assent is a sui generis act—legislative in character but executed by the executive—falling into a zone where judicially manageable standards are absent. Mehta invoked Articles 122 and 212, which bar judicial inquiry into legislative proceedings, and Article 361, which grants immunity to governors and the president for acts done in discharge of official duty.

About The Presidential Reference

The presidential reference, initiated by President Droupadi Murmu in May, seeks the court’s opinion on 14 constitutional questions, including whether “deemed assent” is permissible, whether timelines can be imposed judicially, and whether discretion under Articles 200 and 201 is justiciable. The reference follows Tamil Nadu’s complaint that its governor indefinitely withheld assent on ten crucial bills, prompting the April ruling. A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai has fixed hearings from August 19 through September 9. States such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu have already objected to the maintainability of the reference, calling it a disguised appeal. The outcome promises to redefine the limits of judicial review over constitutional functionaries at the apex of India’s democratic system.