The Centre told the Supreme Court that state governments cannot file writ petitions against the actions of the President and the governor.
He made the remarks to a five-judge bench heeded by CJI B R Gavai adding that the President would also like to have an opinion on the scope of Article 361.
The top court is hearing the Presidential reference on whether the court could impose timelines for governors and the President to deal with bills.
Centre Says States Can't File Writ Petitions In SC Against Actions Of President, Governor In Dealing With Bills
He made the remarks to a five-judge bench heeded by CJI B R Gavai adding that the President would also like to have an opinion on the scope of Article 361 of the Constitution.
Summary
The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that state governments cannot file writ petitions against the actions of the President and the governor in dealing with the bills passed by assemblies for violation of fundamental rights, PTI reported. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while arguing for the centre asserted that the President would like to have an opinion of the apex court on whether states can file writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for violation of fundamental rights.
He made the remarks to a five-judge bench heeded by CJI B R Gavai adding that the President would also like to have an opinion on the scope of Article 361 of the Constitution which says the President, or the Governor will not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done.
Mehta said that "Article 32 lies when there is violation of fundamental rights and the state government in the constitutional scheme does not in itself have the fundamental right. It is a repository of functions which is to protect fundamental rights of its people.” He claimed that the action cannot be filed as it is not maintainable, no direction can be issued to them and thirdly the action of the governor and the President in dealing with the bills is not justiciable.
The solicitor general referred to the April 8 Tamil Nadu verdict in which states were given liberty to approach the apex court directly in case timeline is not adhered by the governor in clearing the bills passed by the assembly.
CJI reverted to the argument stating "Yes. We know what your argument is? If this court does not decide the matter for 10 years, would it be justified for the President to issue an order."
The top court is hearing the Presidential reference on whether the court could impose timelines for governors and the President to deal with bills passed by state assemblies.
With PTI inputs
Published At: