The Union government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that neither state governments nor the Centre can approach the court under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge delays by governors or the president in granting assent to bills, the Hindustan Times reported.

Article 32 of the Constitution, or the right to constitutional remedies, allows any person to directly approach the Supreme Court to enforce their fundamental rights if they are violated.

Appearing before a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that fundamental rights are conferred only on citizens and individuals, not on governments.

The bench has been hearing arguments on a reference made to the court by President Droupadi Murmu about its April 8 ruling that set timelines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures.

In July, the court had issued notice to the Centre and all state governments on the reference.

On Thursday, Mehta also argued before that bench that Article 361 of the Constitution provides “complete immunity” to the president and the governors from being questioned in courts for acts performed in discharge of their constitutional duties, including decisions on assent to bills.

The bench asked Mehta whether constitutional authorities could indefinitely delay decisions on bills.

“When the governor sits on a bill passed by the Legislature even for the second time, can he sit on it for time immemorial?” the newspaper quoted the bench as saying.

The judges also questioned whether the court could ignore the framers’ intent in using the phrase “as soon as possible” in the Constitution to ensure timely action on bills passed by state legislatures.

The court’s April ruling came on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president.

The court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both provisions outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president.

The judgement had also introduced the concept of “deemed assent” in cases of prolonged inaction, allowing pending bills to be considered approved.

In May, Murmu made the reference to the court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with regard to its April 8 ruling.

Article 143(1) allows the president to ask for the opinion and the advice of the court on matters of legal and public importance.