The Center has told the Supreme Court on Saturday (August 16, 2025) that it would not be right to impose a certain deadline on the governors and the President to take steps on the Bills passed in the state assembly. This would mean that using those powers on behalf of one part of the government which was not given by the Constitution and this will create 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 the dealing with the bills passed by the state assembly. To which the Center said, “The alleged failure, inactivity or error of a single organ does not authorize or can neither authorize any other organ to receive such powers, which the Constitution has not provided it. If a organ is allowed to take over any other organ based on the basis of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or justification obtained from the ideals of constitution, then its constitutional disorder will be done, the results of which will be the constitutional disaster Didn’t do it. “

Solicitor General argued in Supreme Court

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has filed this note in the Supreme Court. It has been argued that by implementing a fixed deadline of the Supreme Court, the sensitive balance established by the Constitution will be disturbed and the rule of the law will be rejected.

It states, “If there is a lapse, it should be resolved through constitutionally accepted mechanisms such as electoral accountability, legislative inspection, responsibility of executive, reference process or consulting process between democratic organs.

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

Determining the deadline will be like amending the constitution- Mehta

Challenging the Supreme Court’s decision, Mehta has argued that Article 200 and 201, which are related to the options of the Governors and the Presidents after receiving the State Bill, have not deliberately given any time limit. He said, “When the Constitution wants to set a time-limit to take some decisions, it specifically mentions a time limit. 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.”

ALSO READ: Election Commission will hold a press conference, vote theft and allegations about SIR can answer