New Delhi: Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution and lead to a "constitutional disorder", the Centre has told the Supreme Court.

The Centre has said this in the written submissions filed in the Presidential Reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly. "The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers," it has said.The note filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has argued that the apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law. "The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally-sanctioned mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head," the note says.

The positions of the Governor and Oresident are "politically plenary" and represent "high ideals of democratic governance". Any perceived lapses, the note says, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through "judicial" interventions. The perceived issues, if any, deserve political answers and not necessarily judicial, Mehta has submitted.

Challenging the decision of the apex court, Mehta has contended that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governors' and president's alternatives after receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. "When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution," Mehta has said.