Supreme Court Deadline for Presidents and Governors Challenged by Centre, Warns Against Judicial Overreach: 'Constitution Provides No Such Timeline...'
The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a case that revolves around the discretionary powers of Governors in approving bills passed by state legislatures. The case stems from a long-standing dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi, who delayed giving assent to ten bills passed by the state Legislature.
In April this year, the Supreme Court delivered a verdict, holding that Governors cannot indefinitely delay action on bills as it amounts to a "pocket veto." The Court prescribed fixed timelines: one month for Governors to act under Article 200 and three months for the President to decide under Article 201 on such bills. The President was also advised to seek the Supreme Court's advice under Article 143 if faced with difficult bills.
However, this judicial imposition of deadlines prompted a Presidential Reference under Article 143(1), where President Droupadi Murmu sought clarity on whether courts can prescribe fixed timelines where the Constitution is silent, and what the limits on judicial review are, among other issues.
The Centre, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has objected to fixing such timelines, arguing that the Constitution grants discretionary powers to Governors and the President, which cannot be fettered by judicial timelines. The Centre contends this interferes with the constitutional separation of powers and the discretionary role of these constitutional actors.
During the hearings, the Court underscored the democratic imperative to prevent indefinite delays by Governors, which could nullify the will of elected legislatures. It questioned the Centre on what constitutional remedy exists when Governors delay bills indefinitely, stressing that leaving such power unchecked violates judicial review principles and undermines state legislatures.
In summary, the April 2025 verdict established one-month and three-month deadlines for Governors and the President to act on bills, respectively, with the possibility of 'deemed assent' after delay, and the President seeking the Court's advice for vexed bills. The Presidential Reference, made in May 2025, sought constitutional clarification on these timelines and judicial powers. The Centre's pushback, expressed in August 2025, opposed fixed timelines, asserting Governors and the President have discretionary powers that courts cannot constrain. The Supreme Court Constitution Bench, hearing the reference, is balancing judicial oversight with constitutional discretion, emphasizing the need to prevent indefinite delays that would frustrate legislative will.
This case highlights a tension between judicial efforts to ensure timely governance and the executive’s constitutional discretion over bills passed by state legislatures. It also raises questions about the limits of judicial review and the role of each organ of the State in democratic governance.
- In the realm of general news, discussions have arisen about the role of policy-and-legislation, specifically concerning the case ongoing at the Supreme Court of India, which revolves around Governor's discretionary powers regarding bills.
- The finance sector might experience shifts as a result of this case, as the judgment could impact the timely implementation of state laws, affecting various economic aspects.
- Politics, particularly the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislature, has been a hot topic in the DEFI (Decentralized Finance) community as well, as the Supreme Court's ruling on this case reflects similar debates happening within the digital asset and blockchain industry.
