THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, August 16: The Central Government has raised objections to the Supreme Court’s April 8 order, in which a two-judge bench had stated that Governors and the President must take a decision on pending bills within a fixed timeframe.
The bench had ruled that the President should not take more than three months, and Governors not more than one month, to decide on any bill, warning that the Court would intervene otherwise. Opposing this directive, the Centre argued that such intervention would lead to “constitutional chaos.”
In its written response to the Court, the Centre maintained that fixing such deadlines would trigger a constitutional crisis.
Also Read- State Assembly pays tribute to Ramdas Soren as Jharkhand observes one-day mourning
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Court that while Article 142 grants the Supreme Court special powers, it does not authorize the Court to amend the Constitution or override the legislature. He emphasized that the dignity of offices like that of the Governor should not be undermined.
Mehta further argued that the posts of the President and Governors represent the highest positions in a democratic system and must remain free from judicial overreach. Under Article 200, he said, Governors have the discretion to either approve bills or forward them to the President.
The issue originated from a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, in which the Supreme Court on April 8 had held that both Governors and the President should adhere to a set timeframe for granting assent to bills.
Also Read- Jharkhand Finance Minister given flawed malnutrition figures in Palamu
Following this, President Droupadi Murmu, under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, referred the matter to the Supreme Court through a Presidential Reference, raising 14 questions for the Court’s opinion.
According to available information, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, which will include Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, is scheduled to hear the matter on August 19.
