In a compelling constitutional moment, Supreme Court judges have asserted that governors cannot indefinitely withhold bills passed by state legislatures. During a high-profile presidential reference hearing, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Vikram Nath and P.S. Narasimha emphasized that such delays undermine both democracy and the Constitution itself.
Key Highlights from the Courtroom
- Judges underscored that no constitutional authority can impair the functioning of the Constitution, warning that unchecked delay equates to overreach.
- Senior advocates for opposition-ruled states—like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal—reminded the court that in a republic, governors are not royalty, and must act with urgency.
- Court discussions raised concerns about potential misuse: if governors held onto bills indefinitely, even money bills (which’re supposed to be fast-tracked) could be stalled, weakening state governance.
- While states proposed fixed timelines like three months, the Court cautioned against across-the-board deadlines. It noted delays vary and a rigid timeline might stretch judicial reach too far.
The Context and Its Significance
These observations follow a landmark order earlier this year, which ruled governors don’t have absolute veto powers like the so-called “pocket veto.” Instead, provisions exist for returning bills or granting “deemed assent” if action isn’t taken promptly. The current hearings deepen that legal analysis and center on how delays threaten state democracy.
