The Supreme Court on Thursday (August 21, 2025) asked the central government that if the governors keep the bills with years, which makes the state legislature ‘neutral’, then in such a situation, the courts do not have the power to intervene.
The five-member constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gawai made this comment when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Center, said that the courts should avoid interfering in such a situation and giving binding instructions and political solutions can be found to deal with such deadlock.
Provision will make the legislature ineffective
Apart from Chief Justice, the Constitution Bench also includes Justice Suryakant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar. The bench told Mehta, ‘The assembly elected by majority unanimously passes the bill. If the Governor does not use the provision made under Article-200, it will actually make the legislature ineffective. What is the security for those who are elected.
He said, ‘Can we say that no matter how high the constitutional officer, if they do not perform their duty, then the court does not have the power to interfere in such a situation? The bill has been approved or returned, we are not considering the reasons why they agreed or not. Suppose if the governor stops any act passed by the competent legislature indefinitely, then what will happen?
Do not set an example, find solutions within the system
The bench is hearing the reference of the President under which they have tried to find out whether the courts can set a time limit for the governors and the President to consider the bills passed in the state assemblies. Mehta said that the courts should not set any example in such a situation, but an attempt should be made to find a solution from within the system.
The Center has challenged the Supreme Court’s decision of April 8, under which the pending bills were passed with the Governor of Tamil Nadu. Mehta said, “The instructions to accept these Bills as passed are a violation of the Constitution.” He argued that the courts cannot replace themselves in the role of any other constitutional officer.
The deadline for action on the bills is not determined
The Solicitor General said that no time limit can be set for the President and the Governor to take action on the bills passed in the assembly, as no time limit has been set for these constitutional officials in the constitution. The bench said that it is not in the appellate jurisdiction to review the April 8 decision.
The Chief Justice said, ‘We appreciate your deadline argument, but consider a situation where the governor should perform his duty, but he keeps the bills pending for more than four years. What will happen to the democratic system or that two-thirds majority, through which the government is elected and represents the will of the people? ‘
The bench questioned the central government
Mehta said that a politically solution would have to be found and he ended his arguments on the context of the President. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul has started his arguments on behalf of Madhya Pradesh government. The hearing will resume on 26 August. Earlier, the bench had asked the central government that if the constitutional officials do not discharge their duties or the inaction from the Governors on the Bills passed in the state assemblies, can the constitutional courts be holding hands.
The bench made the comment on the comment of the Solicitor General that if some governors keep the bills passed in the assembly, the states should find political solutions rather than judicial solutions. Justice Gawai questioned Mehta, ‘If the constitutional officer does not discharge his duties without any reason, can a constitutional court be holding hands on hand?’
Follow political solution if the Governor’s Bill is stopped
Mehta said that courts cannot be solved for all problems and talks should be given priority in democracy. Justice Suryakant said, “If any inaction is shown by a governor, which can vary the state rate and if a dissatisfied state moves to the court in this regard, can the judicial review of such inactivity be completely stopped. Tell us, what can be the solution? ‘
Mehta called for adopting some ‘flexibility’ and said, ‘Suppose the Governor is sitting with the bill, there are some political solutions which can be adopted. It does not happen everywhere that the Chief Minister should reach the court directly. There are many examples, where there is talk, the Chief Minister meets the Governor, he meets the Prime Minister and the President and the solution is taken out.
Governor meets President at the time of dispute
He said that telephone conversations were held several times to resolve the deadlock. Mehta said, ‘If any dispute arises for the last several decades, then this process has been adopted to resolve it. The delegation meets the Governor, the President and sometimes a middle road is also taken out.
He emphasized the need to adopt foresight and political maturity to end the deadlock between the state government and the representative governor of the Center. Mehta argued, ‘I am saying that it is not necessary to solve every problem of this country in the court itself. There are many such problems in the country, which are searched within the system itself.
‘Judicial activism never never judicial extremism’
Earlier, the Chief Justice said that judicial activism should never become a judicial terrace. He made this comment when Mehta said that the elected people have a lot of experience and should never underestimate. Justice Gawai said to Mehta, ‘We have never said anything about the elected people. I have always said that judicial activism should never become judicial extremism.
Take decisions on Bills within three months
In May, President Draupadi Murmu, using the powers gained under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution, tried to find out from the Supreme Court whether the time-limit can be set through judicial orders to exercise discretionary rights for the President while considering the Bills passed in the state assemblies.
On April 8, the Supreme Court, considering the powers of the Governor in relation to the Bills passed in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, directed the President to take decisions within three months from the date of receiving references on the Bills reserved by the Governor.
Also read:- ‘Modi government’s wavering attitude on China’, Asaduddin Owaisi raised questions on Chinese Foreign Minister’s visit