In a strong rebuttal to the Supreme Court’s attempt to set timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by State Legislatures, the Central Government has cautioned that such judicial directions could dangerously upset India’s delicate constitutional balance.
In its written submission before a five-judge Constitution Bench on August 12, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta underlined that gubernatorial and presidential assent is not a routine administrative act but a high prerogative, plenary, and non-justiciable power deeply embedded in the constitutional design.
Attempting to subject it to judicial deadlines, the Centre argued, risks distorting the very framework envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
Separation of Powers at Stake
The Centre stressed that India’s constitutional structure rests on the careful separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, with each organ entrusted with core functions.
While overlaps and checks exist to maintain accountability, there are “exclusive zones” reserved for each organ where others cannot intrude.
According to Mehta, the positions of the President and Governors fall in this exclusive constitutional space. They are not mere figureheads or political appointees but custodians of the national democratic will.
The President, elected by representatives of the people, and Governors, appointed by the Union on behalf of the people, represent not just the Centre but the broader constitutional brotherhood of the Indian Union.
“Governors are not aliens in the states they serve; they embody national interest within each federating unit,” Mehta emphasised.
Why Assent Cannot Be Judicially Time-Bound
The Solicitor General noted that when the Constitution wanted to impose time limits on executive actions, it did so explicitly. Articles 200 and 201, governing gubernatorial and presidential assent, deliberately contain no such limits, reflecting the framers’ intent to keep these powers flexible.
By attempting to read timelines into these provisions, the judiciary, Mehta warned, would be crossing into non-justiciable terrain.
The very nature of assent—though exercised by the executive head—is legislative and sui generis. It is guided not merely by procedural legality but also by larger constitutional, political, and democratic considerations, for which no judicially manageable standards exist.
Judiciary Does Not Have All the Answers
In perhaps the sharpest portion of his argument, Mehta reminded the court that “the judiciary does not hold keys or solutions to every conundrum in a democracy.”
If the judiciary arrogates to itself the functions of other constitutional organs, it would trigger a “constitutional disorder” never intended by the Constitution’s architects.
Article 142, which empowers the Supreme Court to do “complete justice,” cannot be stretched to override constitutional text or invent doctrines such as “deemed assent.”
Such judicial innovations, the Centre said, would not only destabilise governance but also create a dangerous precedent of judicial supremacy over other organs—something alien to India’s constitutional philosophy.
Democratic Remedies Over Judicial Remedies
The Centre emphasised that failures or delays, if any, in the functioning of Governors or the President are not matters for judicial intervention.
Instead, they must be addressed through democratic and constitutional mechanisms such as legislative scrutiny, electoral accountability, executive responsibility, and inter-organ consultation.
Political questions, Mehta said, cannot always have judicial solutions. They are meant to be resolved in the democratic arena, not in courtrooms.
A Call for Judicial Restraint
Finally, the Centre invoked the long tradition of judicial restraint in India, urging the apex court to uphold the principle of separation of powers as a basic feature of the Constitution.
Any attempt to rewrite the constitutional design of gubernatorial or presidential assent, it warned, would not only disturb the equilibrium between organs of the State but also negate the rule of law.
“The Constitution designedly left certain questions beyond judicial oversight,” the Centre said, calling on the court to respect that limit.
In essence, the government’s stand is clear: Assent powers of the President and Governors are unique, plenary, and political—untouchable by judicial timelines.
Any judicial attempt to intervene would risk converting the Indian Constitution into one that enshrines judicial supremacy, contrary to its spirit of balance and harmony among organs of the State.
#SupremeCourt #Governors #ConstitutionOfIndia #SeparationOfPowers #PresidentsAssent #Democracy #JudicialRestraint #ConstitutionalBalance #RuleOfLaw #IndianDemocracy
