New Delhi, Aug 16: The Union government has opposed the Supreme Court’s earlier order prescribing fixed timelines for the President and Governors to decide on bills, warning that such directions would disturb the constitutional balance of power.
In a written submission, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the apex court’s April order — mandating a three-month deadline for the President and one month for Governors — would amount to “usurping powers” not vested in the judiciary and could trigger “constitutional chaos.”
“The Supreme Court, even under Article 142, cannot amend or defeat the intent of the Constitution makers,” Mehta stated, stressing that the offices of the President and Governor represent “higher ideals of democratic governance” and should not be reduced to subordinate roles.
The government acknowledged “limited problems” in the assent process but maintained that redressal must come through political and constitutional mechanisms, not judicial intervention.
The April 12 ruling came in a case from Tamil Nadu, where the court sought to regulate delays in clearing bills. The order drew objections from President Droupadi Murmu, who invoked Article 143 to seek the court’s opinion on 14 constitutional questions regarding the powers of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201.
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai will begin hearing the Presidential reference on August 19, after receiving submissions from the Centre and states.
