On September 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India found itself at the center of a spirited debate over the powers and responsibilities of the President and state Governors in the legislative process. The hearing, which drew national attention, featured arguments from the governments of Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, both urging the court to impose a clear time frame for the President and Governors to make decisions on Bills passed by state legislatures. The issue, as presented in court, is not just a matter of legal technicality but a question that strikes at the heart of India’s federal structure and the smooth functioning of its democracy.
According to reporting from SCOTUSblog and The Hindu, the push for reform comes amid growing frustration among several states over what they describe as "endemic and repetitive" delays by Governors in assenting to or acting on legislation duly passed by elected state assemblies. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, did not mince words as he outlined the problem before a five-Judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai. "The problem of gubernatorial delay has proven to be endemic and repetitive," Singhvi stated, emphasizing that Tamil Nadu and Kerala were among the first states to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention in individual cases concerning such delays.
Singhvi’s remarks reflect a broader sentiment among states that the current system, which allows the President and Governors to sit indefinitely on Bills, undermines the will of democratically elected legislatures. The delays, he argued, are not isolated incidents but part of a pattern that threatens to erode the delicate balance of power between the Union and the states. "It is not a one-off issue," Singhvi told the bench, as reported by The Hindu. "It is an endemic problem affecting the very core of federalism."
West Bengal, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, echoed these concerns and took the argument a step further. Sibal contended that, constitutionally, the President and Governors do not possess independent authority in the matter of Bills. Instead, he insisted, "on the issue of considering Bills, the President and Governors have no individual functions. They act in aid of the Council of Ministers in the Centre and the State." This, Sibal argued, is a fundamental principle of India’s parliamentary democracy, where executive decisions are meant to reflect the collective will of the government, not the personal discretion of an appointed official.
The arguments unfolded before a Constitution Bench that included not only Chief Justice B.R. Gavai but also four other senior justices, underscoring the significance of the case. The bench has scheduled further hearings for September 3, 2025, a sign that the court is treating the issue with the gravity it deserves. Legal observers say the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the central government, state governments, and the constitutional offices of President and Governor.
The stakes are high. Over the years, several state governments have complained that Governors—often appointed by the central government—have used their powers to delay or even block legislation for political reasons. These delays can stall key policy initiatives, frustrate the legislative agenda of elected governments, and, in the view of critics, undermine the principle of federalism enshrined in the Indian Constitution. While the Constitution does provide for the President and Governors to give or withhold assent to Bills, or to return them for reconsideration, it is largely silent on how long they may take to do so.
This ambiguity has led to a patchwork of practices across the country, with some Bills languishing for months or even years without a clear decision. For instance, both Tamil Nadu and Kerala have found themselves locked in protracted battles with their respective Governors over important pieces of legislation, prompting them to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention. The court’s willingness to hear the matter in a Constitution Bench signals a recognition that the issue is not merely administrative but constitutional in nature.
Meanwhile, the hearing in India’s Supreme Court is not occurring in a vacuum. On the same day, SCOTUSblog’s morning read for September 2, 2025, highlighted a range of legal issues confronting courts around the world, including a federal appeals court ruling against former President Trump’s tariffs in the United States and a renewed debate over presidential immunity. While the contexts are different, the underlying theme is the same: the tension between executive authority and democratic accountability. Whether in Washington or New Delhi, courts are being called upon to clarify the limits of power and to safeguard the principles of representative government.
The Indian case, in particular, has sparked a lively debate among constitutional scholars and political leaders. Some argue that imposing a strict time limit on the President and Governors would strengthen the hand of state governments and ensure that the legislative process cannot be derailed by political maneuvering. Others caution that any such move must be carefully calibrated to preserve the constitutional checks and balances that prevent hasty or ill-considered legislation from becoming law.
For now, all eyes are on the Supreme Court as it prepares to continue hearing arguments on September 3. The bench’s questions and observations during the initial hearing suggest that the justices are acutely aware of the broader implications of their eventual decision. They must weigh the need for timely decision-making against the constitutional roles assigned to the President and Governors, and consider how best to reconcile the competing demands of efficiency, accountability, and federalism.
As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome could reshape the contours of Indian federalism for years to come. Should the court decide to set a definitive time frame for presidential and gubernatorial action on Bills, it would mark a significant shift in the balance of power between the Union and the states. It could also serve as a precedent for resolving similar disputes in the future, providing much-needed clarity in an area of law that has long been fraught with uncertainty.
Whatever the court’s decision, the case underscores the enduring importance of constitutional checks and balances in a vibrant democracy. As Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and other states await the next round of hearings, the nation watches closely, keenly aware that the outcome will have a profound impact on the way laws are made—and on the relationship between the people, their governments, and the highest constitutional offices in the land.
