The Supreme Court is currently considering whether it can fix a timeline for the President and Governors to give assent to bills passed by state legislatures, a matter that has sparked significant debate about the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches.

Background The issue arose from delays by Governors in assenting to state legislation, prompting some states to approach the Supreme Court. In a case involving Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills reserved for consideration by the Governor. This led to President Droupadi Murmu making a Presidential reference to the Supreme Court, questioning the court's power to set such timelines for constitutional authorities.

Presidential Reference In May 2025, President Murmu exercised her powers under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, posing 14 questions to the Supreme Court regarding the powers of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. Article 143(1) empowers the President to consult the Supreme Court on important questions of law or fact.

Supreme Court's Response On July 22, 2025, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, issued notices to the central government and all state governments, seeking their responses on the Presidential reference. The court noted that the issue has implications for the entire country. The court has scheduled the next hearing for July 29 and plans to commence hearing by mid-August.

Key Questions The Supreme Court is considering several key questions, including: * Whether the judiciary can prescribe timelines for the exercise of constitutional powers by the President and Governors. * What options does a Governor have when presented with a Bill under Article 200? * Is the Governor bound by the Council of Ministers' advice while exercising options under Article 200? * Is the Governor's discretion under Article 200 justiciable? * Can courts impose timelines for the Governor's exercise of powers under Article 200 in the absence of constitutional timelines? * Is the President's discretion under Article 201 justiciable? * Can courts prescribe timelines for the President's powers under Article 201?

Arguments and Concerns

• States' Perspective: Some states have argued that Governors are blocking state legislation by indefinitely sitting on bills.
• Executive's Perspective: There are concerns about the judiciary's encroachment on the powers of the executive branch. Former Vice President has criticized the Supreme Court's earlier order setting a timeline as a "nuclear missile against democratic forces".
• Supreme Court's Perspective: The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by constitutional functionaries. It has also stated that Governors cannot reserve a Bill for the President's consideration based on personal dissatisfaction or political expediency.

Potential Implications The Supreme Court's decision on this matter could have far-reaching consequences for Centre-State relations and the balance of power among the three branches of government. If the court upholds its power to set timelines, it could lead to more efficient law-making processes and reduce political standoffs over pending legislation. However, it could also be seen as an overreach of judicial power, infringing on the autonomy of the executive and legislative branches.