The Supreme Court of India is currently examining the extent of its authority when other branches of government seemingly fail to perform their constitutional duties. This issue has come to the forefront during the hearing of a Presidential Reference regarding the timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, leading a five-judge Constitution Bench, raised a crucial question: "If one wing of democracy fails, would the Court be powerless and forced to sit idle?". This query underscores the judiciary's role as the custodian of the Constitution and protector of democratic principles. The court's concern arises from instances where Governors have seemingly delayed or stalled the assent to bills, thereby creating friction between the states and the central government.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that Governors must act within a reasonable time frame when dealing with bills passed by state legislatures and cannot stall the democratic process by indefinitely sitting on them. The court also stated that the President's decision-making regarding bills should occur within three months.

In response to these rulings, President Droupadi Murmu sought clarification from the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution, questioning whether judicial orders can impose timelines on the President's discretionary powers when dealing with state assembly bills and whether the concept of "deemed assent" was constitutionally valid. The President sent 14 questions to the Court, asking about the constitutional options available to a governor when a bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, argued against judicial intervention in legislative functions, asserting that fixing timelines would interfere with the discretionary powers of Governors. He also argued that the executive and legislature are also custodians of the fundamental rights of citizens. Mehta highlighted the constitutional discretion afforded to Governors and the President in certain contexts, even while acknowledging that their actions are generally guided by ministerial advice. He argued that issuing a 'mandamus' to Governors regarding their legislatively discretionary functions would violate the theory of separation of powers.

Several states, including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, West Bengal, and Himachal Pradesh, have contested the Centre's position, arguing that it seeks to undermine the Constitution's core principles. Some states have argued that a Governor can be compelled to grant assent to a bill if they withhold it despite discussions with the Council of Ministers.

The Supreme Court has expressed its reservations regarding the argument that concerns about Governors' inaction are unfounded. The Court has also clarified that while it cannot dictate the manner in which a Governor makes a decision, it can certainly direct the Governor to make a decision.

The hearing spanned ten days and involved legal luminaries who presented arguments on the presidential reference, focusing on Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution and the question of whether the court can impose timelines for Governors and the President to assent to bills. The Supreme Court has reserved its opinion on the Presidential Reference and is expected to deliver its opinion within the next two months. The ruling is expected to have significant implications for the relationship between the states and the central government, as well as the balance of power between the different branches of government.