Thu Sep 11 03:49:10 UTC 2025: **Summary:**

The Supreme Court of India is hearing a Presidential Reference regarding the possibility of imposing timelines on Governors and the President for acting on bills passed by State Assemblies. The Chief Justice of India, heading the bench, questioned the practice of Governors delaying bills for extended periods. While the Union government, represented by the Solicitor General, downplayed concerns of increased gubernatorial delays, Opposition-ruled states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala argued for set timelines to prevent Governors from acting as a “constitutional court” and unilaterally withholding bills.

**News Article:**

**Supreme Court Weighs Timelines for Governors on State Bills Amid Growing Tensions**

**New Delhi, September 11, 2025:** The Supreme Court of India is grappling with a critical constitutional question: can courts impose deadlines for Governors and the President to act on bills passed by State Assemblies? A five-judge Presidential Reference Bench, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, heard arguments yesterday in a case that highlights the growing tensions between the Union government and Opposition-ruled states.

The crux of the debate centers on allegations that Governors are unduly delaying the assent of bills, effectively stalling the legislative process. Chief Justice Gavai directly challenged the Union government’s assertion that such delays are a “false alarm,” pointing out instances where Governors have held onto bills for years.

“How can you say that when Governors are sitting over Bills for four years?” the Chief Justice questioned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre.

Mehta countered, arguing against reducing the Governor to a mere “ornamental head of State” and emphasizing the historical collaborative relationship between Governors and the Union. He dismissed claims that gubernatorial delays have increased since the NDA government came to power in 2014.

However, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, representing Tamil Nadu and the DMK, argued strongly for the imposition of timelines. He asserted that a bill represents the “political will” of the state legislature and that a Governor should not act as a “constitutional court” by unilaterally withholding assent.

“A Governor cannot act like a constitutional court, adjudicate on the constitutionality of a Bill and unilaterally withhold it… If timelines are not set for gubernatorial assent to Bill, States will be left to wander the corridors of the court,” Wilson stated.

The outcome of this case could significantly impact the balance of power between the Union and the States, and clarify the constitutional role of Governors in the legislative process. The court’s decision is eagerly awaited by political observers and legal experts alike.

Read More