New Delhi: Permission to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state assemblies to the governors can “fail” the democratic process and the will of the people, the Supreme Court on Thursday saw, as it continued to hear the reference of the President and continued whether the courts could write a deadline for Gubaraini and the presidency.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gawai and Justice Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar are investigating Article 143 references of President Draupadi Murmu, held in May. The reference seems to be clarity on the 8 April verdict of the apex court, which first set a deadline for the governors and the President, which to decide on the pending state bills in front of them.
“If a particular work is assigned to the Governor and he withdraws it for years, will it also be beyond the purview of the judicial review of this court? When this court has separated constitutional amendments to remove judicial review as violating the original structure, can we now say that the court can be a high constitutional authority, the courts will also be powerless?” The bench asked.
The bench also suppressed the Center to explain what measures exist when the governors delay action indefinitely. “Under Article 200, if we believe that the Governor has an unlimited power to withdraw a bill for time, then what is the security for a duly elected legislature? Suppose the legislature selected by a two-thirds majority has unanimously passed a bill, and the governor will simply sits on it, it will make the legislature completely bad.”
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, said that the concern of the court can be justified, it cannot consider the jurisdiction to determine the deadline where the constitution is silent. “A justification can never provide jurisdiction. Every problem of this country cannot be solved in the Supreme Court. Some problems will have to find a solution within the system,” he said.
According to Mehta, the solution was in “in the political process, not judicial instructions”. He argued that the Chief Minister could directly join the governors, ministers or the President to solve such impulses.
“Such issues have been arising for decades, but have always been resolved through political states and maturity. Why can’t we rely on other constitutional officials? The measures will eventually lie with Parliament through an amendment, not by judicial law,” Mehta presented.
At this, the bench intervened: “When there is no external limit, can a constitutional interpret be left for a vacuum? Although a time limit cannot be set, the process works in any way. The process cannot happen where there is no situation where not working on a bill is a complete break … nothing further.”
The bench also questioned whether the judicial review could be completely excluded. The court noticed: “The decision may not be justified, but the decision making process definitely comes under the purview of judicial review.”
However, Mehta warned that opening the door for investigation would lead to “multilevel challenges” under the article 200 and 201 at every stage of the Governor or President’s decision. “Our problem is every step before the final decision, as they can also form a ‘decision’,” they argued. He cited judicial examples, where the court stated that a certain deadline for criminal tests cannot be set as judicial, to strengthen their submission that the deadline in constitutional processes also cannot be applied judicially.
But the bench further pressed the petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab and West Bengal. “Suppose a decision has not been taken for four years. What happens to the government’s democratic set-up? What is the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?” Asked this.
Mehta replied with an analogy: “Take the example of pending tests for 10 years. Can the Presidents step up and declare that punishment is understood because the judiciary is delayed? The separation of powers means that some issues are non-essential.”
The court, however, clarified that it was not dealing with a fictional anxiety. “We are petitions from at least four states,” the court underlined.
Inspired by the April’s decision of the court in the Tamil Nadu case, the President’s reference, asks if the judiciary may impose a deadline on constitutional officials like the governor and the President when the constitution itself is silent. In that judgment, a two-judge bench also set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills referred to by a governor, and to work on the re-implemented bills to a governor in a month. Even it applied Article 142 to accept 10 Tamil Nadu bills, after assuming that the prolonged inactivity of the governor was “illegal”.
Mehta criticized the perception of deemed assent. He argued, “It was understood that your Lordship replaced himself for the governor and declared the acceptance.
However, the bench stated that the courts cannot abolish their role as the patron of the Constitution. “Every wrong should have a solution. Will the constitutional court be tied when a constitutional worker refuses to discharge his work without any valid reason? Will the court say that we are powerless?” The bench asked.
The logic on the context will continue on 26 August.
