Supreme Court: The Central Government told the Supreme Court that state governments cannot file petitions against decisions taken by the President or Governor on bills. The government argued that the state itself does not have any fundamental rights, it only protects the rights of the people. The Supreme Court is hearing to decide whether the court can direct the President and Governor to take a decision on the bills within the stipulated time.
The Central Government told the Supreme Court on Thursday that state governments cannot file a petition (case) in the Supreme Court against the decision taken by the President or Governor on the bills passed by the Assembly, even if the state says that it has violated the fundamental rights of the people.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Central Government, said this before a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice (CJI) BR Gavai. The Constitution Bench also comprised Justice Suryakant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar. Mehta said that the President wants to take the opinion of the Supreme Court on whether the state governments can file such petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. He also said that the President also wants to know what is the scope of Article 361 of the Constitution. This article says that the President or the Governor will not be answerable to any court for the discharge of their rights and duties.
Mehta told the Constitution Bench that these questions have been discussed earlier as well. But the President is of the opinion that a clear opinion of the court is necessary, because such a case may arise again in the future. He said that under Article 32, a petition challenging the decisions of the President or the Governor on behalf of the state government cannot be accepted. Neither can the court give any direction in such cases nor can these decisions be challenged in the court.
He further said, Article 32 is used when fundamental rights are violated. But in the constitutional framework, the state government itself does not have fundamental rights. The role of the state government is to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. The Solicitor General also referred to the decision of April 8, in which the Supreme Court had said that if the Governor does not decide on the bills within the time limit, then the state can directly approach the Supreme Court.
It is not right for the Governor to keep the bill pending for six months: CJI
On this, CJI Gavai said that he would not comment on the decision of two judges of April 8, but also said that it is not right for the Governor to keep a bill pending for six months. Mehta replied that if a constitutional institution does not perform its duties, then it does not mean that the court should give orders to another constitutional institution.
On this, the CJI said, yes, we understand what you are saying. But if this court itself does not resolve a matter for 10 years, will the President have the right to give any order? The hearing is still going on.
On August 26, the Supreme Court had raised the question that if a governor does not take a decision on a bill indefinitely, will the court have no recourse? Can important bills like the budget also get stuck due to the independent power of the governor? The apex court raised this question when some BJP-ruled states said that the governor and the President should have complete freedom to decide on the bills. These states also said that the court cannot be the solution to every problem.
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a constitutional reference sent by the President, in which it has been asked whether the court can direct the governor and the President to decide on the bills passed by the assembly within the stipulated time frame. In May, President Draupadi Murmu had sought the opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143 (1) whether the court can direct the President as to when and how to decide on the bills passed by the state assembly.
Leave a Reply