Overview

• The five-judge bench repeatedly said isolated delays do not justify a universal deadline and queried whether using Article 142 to fix one would effectively amend the Constitution.
• Judges pressed counsel on enforceability, asking what follows if timelines are ignored and whether contempt or a ‘deemed assent’ mechanism would create fresh conflicts.
• Senior advocates for opposition-ruled states urged immediate decisions on bills, arguing governors cannot thwart the legislature or examine legislative competence, which they said is for courts to test.
• The Centre opposed court-crafted timelines and objected to state-specific anecdotes, after which the bench emphasized it will confine itself to interpreting the constitutional text.
• Hearings continue, with further arguments scheduled before the Constitution Bench on September 9.