Thu Aug 21 04:57:12 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary and a news article based on the provided text:

**Summary:**

The Indian Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench is hearing a Presidential Reference regarding timelines for Governors and the President to act on state bills. The core question is whether fixed deadlines can be imposed on these constitutional authorities, balancing the powers of elected state governments with the discretionary powers of the Governor and President. The Solicitor General argues against fixed timelines, while the Supreme Court questions if this leaves state governments at the mercy of Governors’ whims. The President sought clarity after a case involving the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in clearing bills. The Supreme Court’s opinion is not legally binding but will be provided to the President.

**News Article:**

**Supreme Court Weighs in on Governor, President’s Power Over State Bills**

**New Delhi, August 21, 2025** – The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing arguments on a Presidential Reference seeking clarification on the power of Governors and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures. The core issue is whether fixed timelines can be imposed on these constitutional heads.

For the third consecutive day, a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice Gavai, is examining the matter. The Presidential Reference was initiated by President Droupadi Murmu following concerns raised over delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor in clearing multiple bills.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, argued that imposing strict timelines could undermine the discretionary powers of the Governor and President, referencing constitutional debates to support his position. Attorney General R. Venkataramani echoed this sentiment, stating the power to withhold assent requires independent judgement.

However, the Supreme Court challenged the Centre’s argument, questioning whether allowing indefinite delays would leave elected state governments at the “mercy of Governors’ whims and fancies.” Chief Justice Gavai questioned the Solicitor General’s interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution.

The court’s decision will provide an advisory opinion to the President on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, specifically addressing whether judicial orders can dictate the timeline for presidential and gubernatorial action on state bills. While the Supreme Court’s opinion is not legally binding, it carries significant weight and will likely influence future decisions regarding the relationship between the Centre, states, and constitutional authorities. The hearing continues.

Read More