New Delhi, Aug 28: The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that state governments cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge actions of the President or Governors in dealing with assembly bills, as states do not possess fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Appearing before a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the President has sought the court’s opinion on whether states can file writ petitions under Article 32 for violation of fundamental rights, and on the scope of Article 361 which grants immunity to the President and Governors.
Mehta argued that such petitions are not maintainable, as directions cannot be issued against constitutional authorities and their actions on bills are not justiciable. “A state is a repository of functions, not a holder of fundamental rights,” he said.
The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, noted Mehta’s reference to the April 8 Tamil Nadu verdict, which had allowed states to approach the apex court if Governors delay assent. Chief Justice Gavai observed that while the court would not comment on that judgment, a Governor cannot indefinitely hold a bill for six months.
The Solicitor General maintained that one constitutional organ failing to act does not empower courts to direct another. The CJI, however, questioned whether the President could intervene if the court itself failed to decide a matter for years.
Earlier, on August 26, the court raised concerns over Governors indefinitely withholding bills, including money bills, and questioned whether judiciary should remain powerless in such cases.
The hearings are part of a Presidential reference under Article 143(1), filed in May by President Droupadi Murmu, seeking clarity on whether courts can impose timelines on Governors and the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.
