Overview

• Chief Justice B. R. Gavai said the Court will interpret constitutional provisions in the Article 143 reference rather than examine state-specific incidents.
• The bench asked parties what consequences follow if the April 8 timelines are not observed, including whether a Governor or the President could face contempt.
• Justices questioned whether the Court can order ‘deemed assent’ for bills left pending, while Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued deemed assent could be an appropriate consequence.
• The Court observed that setting a general time limit might effectively amend the Constitution, though case-specific directions could be issued where delays occur.
• The hearing stems from an April 8 ruling that fixed decision timelines under Articles 200 and 201 and a subsequent Presidential reference challenging the judiciary’s power to impose such deadlines, with arguments continuing.