New Delhi: As a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court for the third consecutive day continued hearing a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether fixed timelines could be imposed on Governors and the President when it comes to dealing with bills passed by state governments, the Union government in its submission to the apex court strongly opposed the fixing of such timelines.Appearing for the Union government, solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, argued on Thursday (August 21) that the solution addressing the constitutional silence on a time limit in Article 200 must come from the Parliament, and not in a judicial order, reported The Hindu.Mehta said that time limits apply for statutory authorities like district authorities and not to composite Constitutional authorities like the President and Governors Mehta.A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice A.S. Chandurkar, heard the arguments.“In the absence of a Constitutionally provided timeline, can such timeline be laid down by the Court even if there is justification? Such issues are arising in every state since last many decades. But when statesmanship and political maturity are at play, they meet the constitutional functionaries at Centre, they meet and discuss…they come together and a political solution is found. These are the solutions to the problem,” SG Mehta told the court, reported LiveLaw.Court asks if state governments are at the mercy of whims and fancies of GovernorsEarlier, the court had asked the Union government on Wednesday (August 20) if elected State governments were at the mercy of the whims and fancies of Governors, who could fail Bills by merely withholding assent for them.“So, are Governors being given total powers to sit in appeal over the elected representatives? This way, if Bills are failed by Governors, governments formed by majority will be at the mercy of their whims and fancies,” asked CJI Gavai.Senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that if a Governor had the power to lapse a Bill by withholding assent, the same logic would apply to the President of India under Article 111, reported The Hindu.“The President can also withhold and fail Bills passed in the Parliament,” Mr. Sibal submitted.The hearing in the matter rises from a 14-point reference to the Supreme Court sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May for an opinion on some of its own powers.The reference concerns the apex court’s landmark judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, in which the Supreme Court set timelines for the president to act as per Article 201 of the constitution on the Bills which a governor has reserved for her assent. The Supreme Court had said that Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi’s move to reserve 10 Bills for the president’s assent was illegal.