Supreme Court's Inquiry on Bill Pendency
The Supreme Court challenged the Centre's claim that states are raising “false alarms” about the pendency of Bills before Governors, citing instances of Bills pending for up to four years. Chief Justice of India B R Gavai led the inquiry, referencing a five-judge Constitution bench hearing concerning a previous order setting deadlines for clearing state Bills.
Centre's Position and Court's Observations
- Centre’s Argument:
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that historically, the Constitution has functioned through dialogue, and there is no urgent need for intervention.
- Mehta emphasized the Governor’s role as collaborative with the Council of Ministers, asserting that the current discourse raises an unnecessary alarm.
- Supreme Court’s Concern:
- Justice Narasimha criticized the idea that Governors could indefinitely withhold Bills without justification.
Role of the Governor
- Governor’s Discretion:
- The SG argued that the Governor should not be reduced to a “rubber stamp” and needs discretion to preserve constitutional integrity.
- He stated that restricting the Governor’s role could hinder actions necessary to uphold the Constitution.
Judicial Intervention and Constitutional Framework
- Judicial Influence:
- The CJI noted that the Basic Structure doctrine emerged through judicial intervention.
- Need for Balance:
- The SG suggested a balanced approach where the Governor’s advisory role and discretion are maintained while ensuring Bills are not unreasonably delayed.
