New Delhi: Objecting the decision of the President to take the opinion of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the bill, the Union Government has said that the judiciary cannot decide the President of how and when, how and when, the opinion of the apex court and what issues should be used to use their unexpected conscience to search for the issues.The decision of Justice JB Pardwala and R Mahadevan’s bench through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on April 8, Faltis JB Pardwala and R Mahadevan said that a simple reading of the President’s powers under Article 143 shows that “a complete conscience with the President is implied with the President.The verdict advised the President that whenever a governor sets a bill for his view on the basis that it is clearly unconstitutional, the President should refer to SC under Article 143 “as a measure of conscience”, given that it is for the apex court to determine the sensitivity and validity of the laws.Further from Tuesday’s hearing in the context of the President before the five-judge’s bench led by CJI BR Gavai, the Center said, “Any constitutional proposal of the law that exists a constitutional expectation for the President, opposite the constitutional scheme to refer to each reserved bill in the Supreme Court”. It gave three reasons to repeat the proposal of SC Bench to this effect:
- Articles 200 and 201 have envisaged that the President will implement his own mind to decide whether to give or not to give or not, and these provisions do not mention any role of the Supreme Court under Article 143.
- Such a proposal suggests that only the judiciary can decide questions related to the Constitution, while the Constitution considers that the legislature, executive and judiciary are every capable and authorized to explain the constitution within their own domains. The Legislature considers the constitutionality of a bill during the debate, the President or the Governor implements his mind, while deciding that a bill is to stop, support or reference and the judiciary decides the validity of an Act in appropriate action.
- Such a proposal converts a constitutional program to a judicial mandate in the nature of a constant mandamas, which is impregnable.
The Union Government said that the Constitution does not empower the judiciary to check the content of a bill which is yet to be made a law, the consent given by a governor or the President. “Constitutional courts cannot do judicial addition work on the content of a pending bill. It is not possible for constitutional courts to look behind the contents of the bill on a platform, in which it is a pending decision before the Governor and postponed whether it needs the reference to the President or not.”It further stated that a state is barred from filing a petition under Article 32, which is the protection of citizens to come directly to SC to prevent their fundamental rights violations. For any dispute between the state and the Center, the concerned parties need to contact SC via a suit under Article 131.The Center said, “A state government cannot file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which is essentially against the state governor …”
