Judicial activism, though permissible, must not cross into ‘judicial terrorism or adventurism,’ the Chief Justice of India observed during Day 3 of Presidential Reference hearing on whether courts can prescribe timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.
CJI reiterated that the Court has always deprecated judicial overreach, while stressing the need for a balance between constitutional functionaries.
A Bench of 5 Judges Is Hearing the Case
The Supreme Court 5-judge Constitution Bench comprising CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar continued hearing the Presidential Reference matter.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, opposed judicially fixed deadlines, arguing that such intervention could disturb the constitutional balance.
Mehta said that the issues of prolonged inaction must be resolved politically, not through judicial mandates.
Cautioning against judicial overreach, he said: ‘Some solutions must come from within the political system.’
The Bench expressed concern over Governors withholding Bills indefinitely.
Different Judges Express Their Opinions
CJI Gavai remarked, ‘If there is a wrong, there has to be a solution. Should the Court remain powerless if Bills are stalled for years?’
Justice PS Narasimha observed that while rigid timelines may not be feasible, a structured process must be put in place to prevent legislative paralysis.
Justice Surya Kant raised the example of Tamil Nadu, where several Bills were kept pending. The Bench questioned the implications of Governors sitting on Bills even when passed with a two-thirds majority
The bench cautioned that such inaction could render legislatures ‘defunct.’
