Supreme Court Debates Constitutional Timelines for Governors

The Supreme Court is deliberating whether it can impose timelines on governors and the President regarding bills passed by state assemblies. The discussion arises from inaction by some governors. The court highlighted the need for judicial review when political solutions fail. Flexibility and dialogue are also encouraged.

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Centre about potential limitations on constitutional courts when governors show inaction on bills passed by state assemblies. Chief Justice B R Gavai led the inquiry, suggesting the courts might need to intervene if constitutional figures neglect their responsibilities without cause.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that political, not judicial, solutions should be sought for such issues. He insisted that flexibility is necessary, allowing dialogues between state leaders and governors or the President to resolve disputes. Mehta noted that no constitutional timetable for governor action exists unless explicitly stated.

The court emphasized its role as the Constitution's custodian, with a duty to interpret it faithfully. Despite Mehta's emphasis on political resolution, the discussion revealed tensions over judicial intervention limits, highlighting a delicate balance between governance and judicial review.

(With inputs from agencies.)