Centre vs SC on Governors’ Timelines for Bills

Background

• Issue: SC’s April 8, 2025 judgment imposed binding timelines on Governors & the President to act on state bills.

  • Governors must act forthwith or within 1 month on re-passed bills.

  • Must decide within 3 months to assent or reserve for President.

  • Inaction could mean “deemed assent” under Article 142.

• Triggered by Tamil Nadu’s petition against its Governor delaying 10 state bills.

Centre’s Submissions

• Main Argument: SC cannot amend the Constitution by imposing timelines → risk of “constitutional disorder.”

• Articles 200 & 201:

  • Provide options: “assent”, “withhold”, “reserve”, “return”.

  • No time limits were deliberately included by framers → meant to keep powers flexible.

  • Judicially creating timelines = rewriting Constitution.

• Governor/President’s Role:

  • “Politically plenary,” representing high democratic ideals.

  • Reducing them to fixed deadlines = “subservient” role.

• Immunity:

• Article 361 protects Governors & President from court proceedings for acts done in the exercise of their official duties

• Decisions under Articles 200 & 201 are part of the legislative process, protected from judicial inquiry (Articles 122 & 212).

• Articles 122 and 212 of the Indian Constitution relate to the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. 

• Article 142 (SC’s “complete justice” power):

  • Curative, procedural in nature.

  • Cannot override Constitution or reallocate powers.

  • Not a “supervening” judicial power..