Center’s statement in Supreme Court: Judiciary cannot interfere with the advice related to President

New Delhi

The Central Government has bluntly stated in the Supreme Court that the judiciary cannot decide when and in the case of which bill the President can consult the apex court. While objecting to the decision that the President binds the Supreme Court to take the opinion of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Bills, the Central Government said that the courts cannot direct the President to direct the President’s opinion of the Supreme Court using his full discretion.

At the same time, the Center said that imposing a certain deadline on the governors and the President to take steps on the bills passed in the state assembly would mean that an organ of the government would use the powers not provided to him in the Constitution and it would create a “constitutional disorder”. The Center has said this in the written arguments filed in the context of the President, in which constitutional issues have been raised whether the deadline can be set regarding dealing with the bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly.
President is not obliged to do so

Calling the verdict of the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan on April 8, the Center said through the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that reading the President’s powers clearly under Article 143 shows that the “complete discretion to take advice is with the President. The word ‘Consultation’ is to ask for advice and shows that the President is not bound to do so.”

In the Supreme Court’s decision, the President was advised that whenever a governor protects a bill for his view on the grounds that he is clearly unconstitutional, the President should consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 as “discretionary measures”, because determining the constitutionality and laws of such orders and laws is the work of the Supreme Court.
5 judges headed by CJI will hear the hearing

Prior to the hearing on the context of the President before a 5 -judge bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, the Center said, “Any constitutional resolution of the law, in which the President is made constitutional expectations to send each reserved bill to the Supreme Court, against the constitutional system.” The Center has given three reasons to reject this proposal of the Supreme Court bench.
Installed sensitive balance will dissolve

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has filed this note. It has been argued that the implementation of a fixed deadline of the Supreme Court will dissolve the sensitive balance established by the Constitution and the rule of the law will be rejected. It states, “If there is an omission, it should be resolved through constitutionally accepted mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative inspection, responsibility of executive, reference process or consultation process between democratic organs, etc. Thus, Article 142 does not give the right to make the concept of ‘valid consent’ to the court, which reverses the constitutional and legislature.”
Political answer should be given and not judicial

The posts of the Governor and President are “politically complete” and represent “high ideals of democratic rule”. The note states that any alleged omission should be resolved through political and constitutional mechanisms, not through “judicial” intervention. Mehta has said that if there is an alleged issue, it should be given political answer and not judicial.
Article 200 and 201 mention

Challenging the Supreme Court verdict, Mehta has argued that Article 200 and 201, which are related to the options of the Governors and the President after receiving the State Bill, have deliberately not given any time limit. Mehta said, “When the Constitution wants to set a time-limit to take some decisions, it specifically mentions a deadline. Where the Constitution has deliberately flexible the use of powers, no fixed time-limit was set. Determining such a limit in judicial point of view will have to amend the constitution.”

The note states that despite control and balance, there are some areas that are exclusive to any of the three organs of the nation and no other can be encroached by anyone. It also states that top positions like Governor and President also come in this field. It said, “The Governor’s consent is a high privilege, complete power that is specific in nature. Although the power of consent is used by a person sitting on top of the executive, however, consent itself is of legislative nature.”