The main judge of India Brvai, aiming at the Presidential Reference bench with five judges, noted on Tuesday (September 9, 2025) that governors must become the government “real guides and philosophers”. He agreed with the Keraly government that the working relationship between the two constitutional authorities must be “cooperating”.
Also read: The most important presidential hearing
The leader of the KK Venugopal, representing Keral, suggested that the governors of the states supported by opposition, such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Pandjab, Telangana and West Bengal, learn from their counterparts in the ruling BJP and its allies, where the accounts are awarded without delay.
“Governors have to deal with Bills” as soon as possible “and not” as soon as possible, “Mr. Venugopal presented with the assistance of the advocate of CK Sasi.
Only delay in opposition states
In her written submissions, Kerala said that eight accounts submitted to his governor remained until the period between seven and 23 months.
“There are up to 28 countries and three territories with legislative assemblies. With the exception of five countries, ie Pandjáb, Telangana, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Keral, 26 state governments or trade unions, or in the lower court that did not become in the law (in accordance) (in accordance) (in accordance) Compliance), which was not in the law).
“Governor is not an opponent”
The leader of the Gopal Subramanium for Karnataka said that grooming large powers would create a dyarchy in the state – a government with two independent authorities.
“The storage of real power in parliamentary democracy is the legislator in his role as representatives of the people … allowing governors to perform much in all its functions would cause national elections to bring numerical exercises in expensive futility,” submanium said.
Mr. Venugopal claimed that the governor must not act as an opponent. In fact, it is a narrow part of the State Legislative Corps. “He is still interested in the success of the state accounts that are for the well -being of people,” he said.
Specific terms
The bench will listen to the presidential reference to whether the timelines to settle with state accounts can be deposited to the governors and the president. The legacy was followed by the Supreme Court’s judgment against Governor Tamil Nadu 8 April, who declared three months’ deadlines for the governors and the president to decide on the fate of the proposals that were submitted to consent or consideration, according to Articles 200 and 201.
The leader of the advocate Arvind Datar asked why the court must be satisfied with the request of the governors to act according to the proposals in a “reasonable time”.
“Why should your Lord ships maintain vague time by saying that” do it in a reasonable time “? The Supreme Court must specify – three months, six months. By consolidating specific time axes. The court gives complete clarity and security,” Mr. Datar said.
Gum
In the past, the justice of PS Narasimha on the bench referred to cases where the court set the timelines, especially in cases of medical acceptance, only to end up with a larger court dispute.
“From time to time, this court set the timeline. However, these orders have become feeding only for further litigation. See cases of medical admission. Every year we correct the timelines for admission. Next year, applications for extending the timeline are submitted,” Judge Narasimha told Mr. Datar.
Interpretation of the Constitution
The leading advisor noted that the reference bench interpreted the constitution and stated that interpretations must help the institute better.
Governor, State Legislature and Government of the Union are part of the Public Affairs Administration, said that if one component was acting by a record by a delay in consent to the accounts, the whole administration system would disintegrate.
Datar stated that if the Supreme Court could intertwine the principle of a substantial process (protection of fundamental rights from government abuse), it could very well read the timeline for Articles 200 and 201.
The state of Telangana, represented by the head of the lawyer S. Niranjnem Reddy, said that the Supreme Court’s counseling jurisdiction under Article 143 was not limited by the separation of powers.
“The Supreme Court, according to advisory jurisdiction, may express the Supreme Court, which answers the questions of the President, to express the collective view that the President/Governor must follow the three -month time plan. Although only the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143, it still has a great convincing value.”
Published – 9 September 2025 20:46
