The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that state governments can’t use writ jurisdiction under Article 32 to challenge the actions of the President or Governors regarding bills passed by state assemblies.
It argued that such actions do not fall within the scope of fundamental rights violations, as states themselves do not enjoy these rights.
Centre Seeks Clarity On Constitutional Provisions
Appearing before a 5-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the President wished to seek the court’s opinion on whether states could move writ petitions under Article 32 for alleged violations of fundamental rights.
He also requested the court’s interpretation of Article 361 of the Constitution, which grants immunity to the President and Governors, stating they are “not answerable to any court” for their official acts or duties.
‘States Can’t Claim Fundamental Rights’
Mehta submitted that Article 32 petitions cannot be filed by states against actions of constitutional heads, as “states do not possess fundamental rights; they are custodians of the rights of their citizens.”
He argued that decisions taken by the President or Governors in dealing with bills are not justiciable, meaning they cannot be subjected to judicial review. According to him, no direction can be issued to these authorities in such matters.
Reference To Tamil Nadu Verdict
The Solicitor General referred to the April 8 judgment concerning Tamil Nadu, where the Supreme Court permitted states to approach the apex court directly if Governors failed to act within a reasonable timeline on bills passed by assemblies.
CJI Gavai, however, observed, without commenting on the earlier verdict, that “a Governor would not be justified in sitting over a bill for 6 months.”
Court Engages On Scope Of Powers
During the hearing, CJI Gavai posed a counter-question to Mehta, “If this court does not decide a matter for 10 years, would it be justified for the President to issue an order?”
The bench also explored whether courts should remain powerless if a Governor indefinitely delays assent to bills, including crucial ones such as money bills.
Background
The matter stems from a Presidential reference under Article 143(1) made in May by President Droupadi Murmu. The reference sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether courts can impose timelines for Governors and the President while dealing with state legislation.
The issue has gained prominence after several BJP-ruled states defended the autonomy of Governors and the President, stating that “assent to a law can’t be dictated by courts” and that the judiciary can’t intervene in every executive action.
The hearing is ongoing. The Constitution Bench, which also includes Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar, will continue examining the scope of executive discretion and judicial review over bills passed by state legislatures.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
