The central government said that the President and the Governor cannot file a writ petition in the state Supreme Court against the action on the bills passed by the Assembly. The Center said that the state governments cannot use Article 32. Because fundamental rights are for common citizens, not for states.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the President wants to know if the states have such rights. He also said that according to Article 361, the President and the Governor are not accountable in court for their decisions.
The Center argued that the court cannot give any instructions to the President or the Governor as their decisions do not come under the purview of judicial review. At the same time, the court said that if a governor keeps the bill pending for six months then this is also not correct.
A five -judge bench headed by CJI BR Gawai heard the petition to implement the deadline for signing of the governors and the President on the bills sent by the state governments.
On May 15, 2025, President Draupadi Murmu gave a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution and sought the opinion of the court on 14 questions related to the powers of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and 201.
The central government said that the President and the Governor cannot file a writ petition in the state Supreme Court against the action on the bills passed by the Assembly. The Center said that the state governments cannot use Article 32. Because fundamental rights are for common citizens, not for states.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the President wants to know if the states have such rights. He also said that according to Article 361, the President and the Governor are not accountable in court for their decisions.
The Center argued that the court cannot give any instructions to the President or the Governor as their decisions do not come under the purview of judicial review. At the same time, the court said that if a governor keeps the bill pending for six months then this is also not correct.
A five -judge bench headed by CJI BR Gawai heard the petition to implement the deadline for signing of the governors and the President on the bills sent by the state governments.
On May 15, 2025, President Draupadi Murmu gave a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution and sought the opinion of the court on 14 questions related to the powers of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and 201.
The case was raised from the dispute between the Tamil Nadu Governor and the State Government. Where the state government bills were stopped from the governor. The Supreme Court on 8 April ordered that the Governor has no veto power.
It was said in this decision that the President will have to take a decision on the bill sent by the Governor within 3 months. The order came to light on 11 April. The President then sought opinion from the Supreme Court in the case and asked 14 questions. August 26: BJP ruled states said- Court cannot decide a time limit
In the last hearing on 26 August, the BJP -ruled states presented their stand in the court. Lawyers of BJP ruled states including Maharashtra, Goa, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Puducherry said that the court does not have the right to approve the bills.
On this, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gawai asked that if a person would ban the bills from 2020 to 2025, should the court sit helpless? The CJI asked the central government whether the Supreme Court should renounce its responsibility as the ‘Patron of the Constitution’?
On behalf of Maharashtra, senior advocate Harish Salve said that only the Governor or the President has the right to approve the bills. In the constitution, it should be assumed that there is no system as the bill has passed without approval.
Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj (from Uttar Pradesh and Odisha) said that the President and the Governor have the right to autonomous and conscience before approved on bills. The courts cannot decide a time limit.
