Overview

• Chief Justice B. R. Gavai asked if the court must stay idle when a Governor sits on a duly passed bill for years, warning that such inaction can render a legislature defunct.
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that Articles 200 and 201 set no deadlines and that fixing timelines for Governors or the President would rewrite the Constitution and breach separation of powers.
• Justices noted that while a Governor’s ultimate decision may be insulated, the decision‑making process and prolonged inaction can be subject to judicial scrutiny.
• The hearing stems from the April 8 Tamil Nadu ruling that introduced a three‑month decision window and ‘deemed assent,’ which prompted President Droupadi Murmu’s Article 143 reference posing 14 questions.
• Multiple states have raised similar disputes over assent delays, and the bench recorded that Mehta concluded his submissions before arguments continue next week.