Centre Asserts State Writ Jurisdiction Limitations in Supreme Court

New Delhi, Aug 28 (PTI) — The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that state governments are unable to invoke writ jurisdiction to move the apex court against the President's and the governor's actions concerning violation of fundamental rights when dealing with bills passed by assemblies. A five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, heard the submission from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre. Mehta conveyed that the President seeks the Court's opinion on whether states have the authority to file writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution for fundamental rights violations.

Scope of Article 361 Under Review — The President also requires clarification on Article 361, which states that neither the President nor the Governor is answerable to any court for their official duties or any actions taken. Mehta explained to the bench—which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar—that while these debates have occurred before, the President is keen on the Court's perspective for future reference.

Concerns over Article 32 Petitions — Mehta argued that Article 32 petitions by states against actions of the governor and the President are non-maintainable, as the Constitution does not grant fundamental rights to state governments but rather assigns them the task of safeguarding individual rights. He referenced the April 8 verdict, which permitted states to approach the apex court directly when governors do not adhere to timelines for clearing assembly-passed bills.

Chief Justice’s Remarks — Chief Justice Gavai remarked on not commenting on the April 8 ruling but emphasized that a governor shouldn’t sit on a bill for six months. Mehta countered that one constitutional body failing its duty doesn't allow the Court to compel another. The Chief Justice posed a rhetorical situation questioning if a court delay of 10 years justifies presidential intervention. The hearing is ongoing.

Judiciary's Role and Governors' Autonomy — On August 26, the Court discussed concerns on whether it has the power to act if a Governor withholds bill assent indefinitely and whether such autonomy could block vital legislation like money bills. The issue arose after some BJP-led states defended the discretion of Governors and the President, arguing that the judiciary should not always serve as a remedial solution.

Presidential Reference on Timelines — The Court is addressing a Presidential reference to assess if it can mandate timelines for Governors and the President in handling state assembly bills. President Droupadi Murmu, in May, sought the Court's guidance using Article 143(1) on whether judicial directions could set deadlines on the President's discretion regarding state-passed 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.)