The Union government on Monday strongly objected to the idea of imposing deadlines on constitutional authorities like Governors and the President, arguing that such directions would interfere with their discretionary powers.

The submission came during a Supreme Court hearing on petitions that sought a defined timeframe within which Governors must act on state bills and the President must decide on references made to the apex court under Article 143 of the Constitution.

Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General R. Venkataramani contended that the judiciary cannot prescribe rigid schedules for the President, whose authority under Article 143 to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion is exercised solely at his discretion. “The Constitution does not contemplate the Court directing the President on when and how to seek its views,” he argued, warning that judicial timelines would dilute the independence of constitutional offices.

The Bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, had earlier observed that indefinite delays by Governors in granting assent or withholding decisions on bills could disrupt governance and undermine legislative intent. The court had also noted that prolonged inaction in such matters raised concerns of federal imbalance.

The Attorney General said that while the petitioners insisted that inaction effectively stalls the democratic process, the Centre maintained that the remedy lies in constitutional conventions and political accountability, not judicially mandated deadlines. It would be an encroachment into the domain of the executive and legislature if this Court directs how the President or Governors must exercise their powers.

With the Supreme Court expected to weigh the delicate balance between constitutional discretion and the need to prevent administrative paralysis, the matter has been posted for further hearing next week.

📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC

Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting