INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court on Monday, under a five bench led by CJI B.R Gavai, examined whether fixed time can be set for Governors and the president to act on bills passed by the State legislature. The case is being taken up under Article 143 of the Constitution of India following the Supreme Court’s decision on the State of Tamil Nadu V Governor in April 2025.
BACKGROUND
The case began after continuous disagreements between the State Governments and Governors due to holdups in approving bills. During April 2025 the Supreme Court of India held that the Governors cannot delay bills indefinitely which were passed by the State Legislature. This hearing is based on a presidential address under Article 143, which empowers the president to seek the Supreme Court’s guidance on significant constitutional issues. To resolve the issue between the State Governments and Governors the president Droupadi Murmu sought the opinion of the five – judge Constitution bench. The bench consists of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar.
KAPIL SIBAL’S ROLE IN THE CASE
In this case Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal is appearing as senior advocate in the Supreme Court before the Constitution Bench in this case. His role is to present the arguments on the constitution raised in the Presidential reference. He argued that the executive has no legislature power that means only elected legislatures can make laws. The law making is the exclusive domain of the legislature. He mentioned that the Governor cannot withhold the bills which were already passed by the state legislature. According to his view, the unnecessary holding of bills weakens the democratic process and disrupts the federal balance that divides the authority between central and state Government. By raising all those points the sibal marked his opinion to the Bench that they have to ensure that the Governors must remain within their constitutional limits and avoid obstructing the functioning of the State Governments.
THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court ruling will mark a significant rule in defining how far a Governor’s power extends. It will also decide whether the Governors can delay the bills or if they have to approve after the bill passed by the State Government. Nowadays several states have accused Governors of interfering and making delays in approved bills.A firm and clear ruling may lead to settle these long-standing conflicts.
CONCLUSION
The present Presidential Reference is more than just a legal exercise – it is a test of India’s Constitutional balance. With all the arguments made by senior advocate Kapil Sibal the case has highlighted the need to safeguard democracy. By deciding this case, the Supreme Court not only clarifies the Governor’s power but also influences how the States and Centre work together.
AUTHOR DETAILS:
Aswathy S Menon, a law graduate from Mar Gregorios College of Law, Thiruvananthapuram, and Practicing as a lawyer at High Court of Kerala with over two years of experience in litigation, compliance, and legal research. She has contributed to legal content writing and worked on civil, criminal, and corporate matters, with particular interests in corporate governance, contract law, and dispute resolution.