THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, August 21: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Thursday cautioned that judicial activism should not cross into “judicial terrorism or adventurism” as the Supreme Court continued hearings on a presidential reference concerning the role of governors and the president in assenting to state bills.
The remark came in response to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who argued that elected representatives with vast experience should not be undermined.
“We never said anything against elected people,” the CJI clarified while making the observation. The bench also comprised Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar.
Also Read- Jharkhand News: Blade attack on MBA student sparks protest at BIT Mesra
Centre’s Stand on Governors’ Powers
Presenting the Centre’s position, Mehta said that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a governor’s act of withholding assent is an independent and complete constitutional function.
He also highlighted the growing accountability of elected leaders, noting that unlike two decades ago, today’s voters are far more aware and demand direct answers from politicians.
Court’s Position and Background
The ongoing hearing stems from a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu in May under Article 143(1). She sought clarity from the top court on whether judicial orders can mandate fixed timelines for governors and the president to act on bills.
Earlier, on April 8, the Supreme Court had directed that the president must decide on bills reserved by governors within three months—marking the first time such a timeline was prescribed.
The Centre, in its written submission, warned that imposing deadlines would upset the constitutional balance by allowing one organ of government to assume powers not conferred on it, creating what it termed “constitutional disorder.”
Also Read- FAIMA launches helpline to tackle medicos’ suicides
Reference Questions Before SC
The president, in a five-page reference, posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on the extent of powers held by governors and the president under Articles 200 and 201 when dealing with bills passed by state legislatures.
The top court has clarified that it is exercising its advisory jurisdiction in this matter, not its appellate one.
