THE SUPREME COURT TODAY expressed concern over the implications of Governors indefinitely withholding the Bills passed by State legislatures, warning that such inaction could render a democratically elected legislature — representing the will of the people —“defunct”.
Hearing the Presidential Reference on the powers of Governors/President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a five-judge Constitution Bench, asked: “suppose a particular function is entrusted to [the] Governor. When this Court has set aside the constitutional amendment which took away power of judicial review, with those judgments, can we say that however high a constitutional [functionary] may be, if it does not act, the Court is powerless? Suppose an Act [is] passed by [a] competent legislature, [if the] Hon'ble Governor sits over it, then?”
The Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, was responding to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s contention that even if a Governor delays action or indefinitely withholds Bills, the Courts cannot step in as actions of the Governor in exercise of powers under Article 200 are not justiciable.
Resuming arguments from Wednesday, the Solicitor General, representing the Central government, said that even if there is a justification to act over the alleged inaction by the Governor in exercise of his powers under Article 200 (giving assent to the Bill passed by the state legislature), it does not confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to intervene and adjudicate the issue as its solution lies within the system through political and democratic processes.
Mehta told the Constitution Bench that even “in such a situation, (approaching) the Court is not a solution. The solution is either amending the Constitution or taking recourse to the political process. Not that the buck for every problem will stop at the doorsteps of the Supreme Court.”
