Overview

• A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai said it will interpret constitutional provisions rather than examine individual state-specific instances.
• Several judges doubted whether Article 142 permits a universal deadline, with Justice Vikram Nath warning that such a rule would effectively amend the Constitution.
• The court asked what would follow if any court-set timeline were ignored, including whether contempt could apply, as Tamil Nadu suggested "deemed assent" as a possible consequence.
• Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal urged general limits to curb indefinite withholding of assent, arguing that prolonged inaction frustrates the legislature’s will.
• The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, opposed reliance on state examples and argued that court-imposed timelines would upset separation of powers; hearings resume on September 3.