The head judge of India Br Gavai, who on Wednesday (September 10, 2025) is heading to the presidential bench with five judges, pointed to governors who had been sitting together for years, although the Union’s government referred to disputes induced by delayed states such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
“How can you say that when the governors sit over the accounts for four years?” The chief judge Gavai asked the center, represented by general lawyer Tushar Mehta.
The legacy followed the judgment of the court of 8 April on the matter of Governor Tamil Nadu, who prescribed the three -month time line of the President and Governor to decide on the accounts. Tamil Nadu approached the top court after the governor of the state sat over 10 accounts since 2020.
Mr. Mehta justified that the center does not justify the governors who have delayed the consent to the “infinitely” accounts. He just wanted to say that the state and its governor must act “cooperating” to ensure the smooth functioning of the constitution.
“We are proud of our institute, given what is happening in neighboring countries. Just as what happened in Nepal yesterday …” said the chief judge Gavai. Judge Vikram Nath was mentioned in the same context.
Mr. Mehta said that “cooperation” is only possible if both parties (state and governor) had powers. He argued that there was no room for cooperation if the governor was expected to be a dirty state cabinet and mechanically sign the accounts that had given consent before him.
“The governor cannot be limited to the ornamental head of state. We may have had certain aberrations, but in the last 55 years each governor has acted in the way he expected them in a cooperating way,” Mr. Mehta said.
He protested against the argument of the States of Opposition States that the cases of governors who delay accounts increased after the government NDA came to power on Wednesday in 2014.
Judge Vikram Nath watched that the reference bench did not follow what happened before or after 2014. The court answered questions from the legal chairman that the President raised during the reference.
“The question is not whether one bill was detained or 1,000 accounts have been detained. The hearing is whether the governor can detain the law indefinitely,” remarked Surya Kant.
The PS Narasimha justice tested the statement of the center that the proposed law would fail at the moment the governor detained the law in the first case pursuant to Article 200. The judge asked how the draft Act on both Chambers of the State Legislative Corps after a proper consultation may fail by the lonely conduct of the governor’s consent.
“If there is no consultation process by which the bill is returned to the State Legislative Corps for reassessment.
Senior Advocate P. Wilson, who appeared for Tamil Nadu and his ruling party DMK, claimed that the bill was a “statement of political will”.
“The governor cannot act as the Constitutional Court, decide on the constitutionality of the bill and unilaterally detained it … If the timelines are not set for the governor’s gubernorial consent, the states will be left to pass the courts,” he said.
“Sitting Duck”
The attorney Avani Bansal, who appeared for MPs Tamil Nadu Sabha Sasikanth Senthil, said that citizens could not be “sitting ducks” by the governor, for example, located the Health Care Act for years.
“If the governor sits indefinitely on the bill, Article 200 would be done inoperative and unnecessary,” said the general advocate Meghalaya Amit Kumar.
The leader of the advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who appeared for the former IPS and advocate officer, claimed that disapproving situations may occur without a way of relief, if there is no judicial review of the conduct of high constitutional bodies, such as a governor.
The TELANGANA state, represented by the head of the lawyer S. Niranjan Reddy, claimed that the Governor’s action must be judged to discriminate if the law agreed in one state as the same party as on Wednesday, disagree in a state that follows the opposition.
He said that the constitution was developed at a time when states showed “Fissiparous tendencies”.
“Seventy -five years later, there is no longer existed. The interpretation of the constitutional provision now dilute the powers of states by reading in broad discretional powers Governor is not favorable … It is very unlikely that the democratically chosen ministers council would provide poor advice while sending approval law.”
This story has been fixed for error
Published – 10 September 2025 9:26
