SC asks if harmony between governor, state govt meets Constitution's vision

In May, President Murmu sought SC guidance under Article 143(1) on whether judicial orders can set timelines for presidential action on state assembly bills

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether the country has lived up to the expectations of the Constitution framers that there will be harmony between the governor and the state government, besides the consultation on various issues between the two power centres.

The observation of a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai came when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, referring to the Constituent Assembly debates on appointment and powers of the governor.

The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, was told by Mehta that unlike criticism made in different quarters, the post of governor is not for political asylum seekers but has certain powers and responsibility under the Constitution.

The solicitor general, who continued his submissions on the Presidential Reference which raised constitutional questions on whether the court can impose timelines for governors and the president to deal with Bills passed by state assemblies, said that elaborate debates on the role and appointment of governors has taken place in the Constituent Assembly keeping in view the federal scheme of the Constitution.

On Tuesday, the top court questioned the Centre and the attorney general over the long pendency of Bills passed by assemblies with governors, underscoring the limitations of Constitutional courts in situations where legislation has been pending since 2020.

The top court has said it would be expressing its views only on the law and not on the April 8 decision in the Tamil Nadu case, fixing a timeline for governors and the president for acting on Bills passed by state legislatures.

The top court, while responding to the preliminary objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments on maintainability of the Presidential Reference, said it would exercise its advisory jurisdiction as it was not sitting in the appellate jurisdiction.

In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with Bills passed by state assemblies.

The Centre said in its written submission that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on Bills passed by a state assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, and lead to "constitutional disorder".

On April 8, the apex court while dealing with the powers of the governor with respect to Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, for the first time, prescribed that the president should decide on the Bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such a reference is received.

In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with Bills passed by the state legislature.