Supreme Court questions Governors' power to block Bills indefinitely, asserts judicial review
The Supreme Court expressed strong concerns over Governors indefinitely withholding State Bills, potentially rendering State legislatures defunct. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai questioned if the SC, as the Constitution's custodian, should remain powerless when constitutional functionaries fail to discharge their duties without valid reasons. The Solicitor-General argued that such delays are political matters, not judicial, and the court should avoid encroaching on law-making. However, the CJI referenced the SC's past role in upholding the Basic Structure by setting aside constitutional amendments that limited judicial review, asserting the court's power to intervene in such constitutional impasses.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court questioned the constitutional validity of Governors indefinitely withholding assent to State Bills.
- CJI B.R. Gavai highlighted instances like the Tamil Nadu Governor's inaction on crucial State Bills for years.
- The Solicitor-General argued that delays in assenting to Bills are political issues to be resolved in the political sphere, not through judicial orders.
- Justice P.S. Narasimha raised concerns about Bills being left in a 'vacuum' if no time limits are set for gubernatorial assent.
- The CJI asserted the Supreme Court's role in upholding the Basic Structure of the Constitution, even if it means intervening in actions of constitutional authorities.
Exam Facts
- Chief Justice of India: B.R. Gavai
- Solicitor-General: Tushar Mehta
- Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 (42nd Amendment) was referenced for limiting judicial review.
- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Surya Kant were part of the Presidential Reference Bench.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.