Supreme Court Acted to Address ‘Egregious Situation’ in Tamil Nadu Governor Case: Presidential Bench

Quick Summary

• A five-judge Presidential Reference Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief justice B.R. Gavai, began hearings on August 19, 2025.
• The case concerns tamil Nadu State Bills that had been pending with the Governor since 2020. The Court granted ‘deemed assent’ in an earlier judgment.
• Justice Surya Kant and other judges highlighted “glaring facts” regarding the extended delay in decision-making by the Tamil Nadu Governor.
• Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued against judiciary interference under Article 142 to impose timelines for Presidential/Governor action on State Bills.
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized that maintaining constitutional balance was key and said fact details were not relevant to this hearing.
• Earlier in April 2025, a Supreme Court Division Bench fixed three-month deadlines for Governors/President to act on State Bills, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution.

Indian Opinion analysis

The ongoing discussions in India’s Supreme Court about timelines for Governors and the President to act on State Bills highlight complexities within constitutional interpretations. The controversy points toward systemic inefficiencies when state legislation gets indefinitely stalled due to executive delays at higher levels of governance. Tamil Nadu’s example has raised broader questions about balancing judicial authority with executive prerogatives without overstepping jurisdictional boundaries.

If left unaddressed, prolonged legislative bottlenecks could erode public trust in governance structures by stifling state-level policy implementation processes deemed crucial by elected legislatures. While defining time frames might ensure timely decisions and prevent such egregious situations from persisting like those observed in Tamil Nadu’s case, it equally underscores concerns over judicial encroachment into executive functions-a delicate matter requiring nuanced resolution grounded strictly within constitutional principles.

Read more: Supreme Court hearing updates