Should Courts Stay Silent if Governors Delay Bills? CJI Questions Government’s Stand

The Supreme Court is hearing an important case on whether governors and the president should have a fixed 90-day deadline to approve or return bills passed by state assemblies. The matter, referred by the president, came up for discussion on Thursday. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that under Article 200 of the Constitution, governors have wide powers to decide on bills at their discretion. He said governors act in line with constitutional and political propriety, and therefore, fixing a strict time limit would not be appropriate.

Court Questions the Balance Between Constitutional Authorities

Presenting the government’s stand, Mehta said that both the governor and the president are constitutional authorities, just like the court. The question, he asked, is how one constitutional authority can set a timeline for another equal authority. On this, Justice Narasimha remarked that the situation has become such that both sides are taking extreme positions. He noted this happens when one side has already made up its mind, but that does not mean only one side is right. During the hearing, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai also made significant observations.

CJI Gavai’s Strong Remarks in Court

CJI Gavai said that if a constitutional body makes a mistake, there must be a solution. The court itself is a part of the Constitution. He asked whether the court should remain silent if a constitutional institution fails to perform its duty without any valid reason. Should the court rule that we have no options and are helpless? We must take some decision,” he said. At the same time, Solicitor General Mehta raised questions about the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that such matters should not be brought before the judiciary for a ruling.

Political Solutions vs Judicial Interference

Mehta further argued that if a governor does not take a decision on a bill, there are political solutions. In such cases, a delegation can approach the prime minister or the president, and the issue can be resolved politically. But this does not mean that the court should set a timeline for governors or the president. He pointed out that similar issues have arisen in several states in the past, but they were settled through political maturity. To this, Justice Narasimha responded that while the court may not set a strict timeline, there must at least be a process in place.