CJI Warns Against Judicial Terrorism in Court Hearing

New Delhi, Aug 21 (PTI): Chief Justice of India B R Gavai remarked on Thursday that judicial activism should not transform into judicial terrorism. This statement was made during a presidential reference hearing that questioned whether the court could establish deadlines for governors and the president to address bills passed by state assemblies.

The remark was directed towards Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre and emphasized that the role of experienced elected officials should never be undermined. "We never said anything about the elected people. I have always said that judicial activism should never become judicial terrorism or judicial adventurism," Chief Justice Gavai responded to Mehta.

The bench included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar. Mehta continued his submissions by discussing various Supreme Court verdicts concerning the powers of governors, as the hearing progressed into its third day.

At the start, the solicitor general expressed anticipation for senior advocate Kapil Sibal’s contribution to the presidential reference, highlighting Sibal’s vast experience in public life and governance along with his role as a parliamentarian. “Elected people from any political party are now accountable to their voters directly, unlike 20-25 years ago. The electorate is informed and cannot be easily misled," Mehta noted.

He explained that “withholding assent” by the governor is an independent and complete responsibility of the constitutional functionary under Article 200 of the Constitution. The previous day, the Supreme Court had asserted that the governor could not refer bills back to the president for consideration after the state assembly had cleared them a second time.

The court, while addressing initial objections by the Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments regarding the maintainability of the presidential reference, declared it would utilize its advisory jurisdiction, distinct from its appellate jurisdiction.

In May, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) to gain clarity from the top court on whether judicial orders could impose deadlines for presidential discretion concerning bills passed by state assemblies.

The Centre, in its written submission, argued that imposing deadlines on governors and the president regarding state assembly bills would effectively allow one branch of government to assume powers not granted by the Constitution, leading to a "constitutional disorder."

In April, the Supreme Court, while examining the governor’s authority over Tamil Nadu Assembly bills, for the first time recommended that the president make decisions on bills reserved for consideration within three months from receiving such references.

In a five-page referral, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court, seeking opinions about the governor's and president's powers under Articles 200 and 201 concerning state legislature bills.

(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)