Bench of the Constitution, headed by the chief judge of India Br Gavai and including Judge Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar hears arguments on the last day of the presidential reference hearing on September 11, 2025.
The Supreme Court will not “sit idle” and helpless if the constitutional body fails to fulfill its duties, no matter how high it can be, the main judge of India Bravai has expressed the court on the last day of the presidential reference hearing, which brought a sharp focus on schism between opposition states and their governors before delaying consistent laws.
“Howwsoever High an Authority May Be, He Is Not Above the Law … I AM a Strong Believer in the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. I Believe That Judicial Activism HIS DUTIES, WOULD THE COURT, WHICH IS THE CUSTODIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION, BE POWERLESS AND FORCED TO SIT Idle, ”Chief justice Gavai Asked The Union Government, Represented by General Attorney Tushar Mehta on Thursday (September 11, 2025).
The Union’s government used the platform of the presidential reference to the criticism of the Top Court for affecting the regions of the governors and the president. The bone of the dispute that led to the presidential legacy is the Supreme Court judgment on April 8, 2025, which ordered a three -month deadline to the governors and the President to deal with the draft laws submitted to consent or consideration.
According to the judgment, the Court ruled that the vagaries and imagination of the governors could not withhold the administration of affairs by infinitely by incorporating important legislation approved by state lawmakers for the well -being of their people.
Mr Mehta said that an attempt to enforce the solution of “universal” of all “storage” of a unified time frame for all accounts would prove to be “self -destructive”.
“Every bill has its own contextual problems. Some may require the governor to have further negotiations and consultations. There are times when the state, although he knew that the bill could eventually harm the state, he is forced to tend to the public pressure to pass it.
Mr. Mehta said that the top court cannot issue the Governor to the Governor of Mandamus to agree with the accounts. Gubernatorial Assent was part of the legislative process. Courts cannot interfere with the creation of law.
“Yes, we cannot ask the governor to decide in a specific way, but the court can very well ask the governor to decide. Mandamus can be issued to the Governor to decide,” Judge Kant replied.
Mr. Mehta questioned the narrative that the governors would constantly delay the accounts.
He said most accounts over the last 50 years have been submitted to the Governors for a month.
“Even in the case of Tamil Nadu, with the exception of 10 controversial accounts, consent was usually given in a month. The governor does not fit infinitely,” Mehta said.
The chief judge Gavai said that the constitution presupposes the atmosphere of mutual agreement and at the same time imagines the role of governors in the states.
“While constitutional framers were considering the position of governors, it was expected that it would be harmony. In the appointment of governors, the provincial government (now states) would be accepted on board …” said the chief judge.
Mr. Mehta responded that the relations between government governments had recorded decades of harmony before Delhi’s government began to submit written petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution against Lieutenant.
“Was it a recently launched phenomenon starting with the government of Delhi … Are there states with different governments, congress and communist governments, and will you get Article 32 of the petition from them?” Mr. Mehta asked.
The Prosecutor General R. Venkataramans said that the Governor should be discretion after testing his constitutionality to either agree or withhold the bill.
“There is nothing wrong in the governor who decides to withdraw the law and send a message back to the State Assembly on his decision. The question is whether the governor can endlessly retain without sending any message,” said the chief judge Gavai.
The presidential legacy was reserved for the judgment.
Published – 11 September 2025 20:33
