The central government said that the states cannot file a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the action of the President and the Governor 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 the states. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the President wants to know whether the states have such a right. He also said that according to Article 361, the President and the Governor are not accountable to the court for their decisions. The Center argued that the court cannot give any instructions to the President or the Governor because 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 right. A five-judge bench headed by CJI BR Gavai heard the petition to impose a deadline for the governors and the President to sign the bills sent by the state governments. On May 15, 2025, President Draupadi Murmu made a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution and sought the court’s opinion on 14 questions related to the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201. The dispute started from Tamil Nadu…
This matter arose from the dispute between the Tamil Nadu Governor and the state government. Where the Governor had kept the state government’s bills on hold. The Supreme Court ordered on April 8 that the Governor has no veto power. In the same decision, it was said that the President will have to take a decision within 3 months on the bill sent by the Governor. This order came out on April 11. After this, the President sought the opinion of the Supreme Court in the matter and asked 14 questions. Read full news… Hearing was held for 4 days this month, read what happened in it… 26 August: BJP ruled states said – Court cannot set a time limit In the last hearing on August 26, BJP ruled states had put their side in the court. Lawyers from 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 Gavai asked that if someone keeps the bills on hold from 2020 to 2025, should the court sit helplessly? The CJI asked the central government whether the Supreme Court should abdicate its responsibility as the ‘guardian of the Constitution’? Senior advocate Harish Salve, on behalf of Maharashtra, said that only the Governor or the President has the right to approve the bills. There is no provision in the Constitution for deemed assent, that is, to assume that the bill has been passed even without approval. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj (on behalf of Uttar Pradesh and Odisha) said that the President and the Governor have complete autonomy and discretion before approving the bills. Courts cannot set any time limit. Read full news… 21 August: Center said- States should resolve disputes through dialogue
The central government told the Supreme Court that if the governors do not take any decision on the bills, then the states should find a solution through dialogue instead of the court. The Center said that courts cannot solve all the problems. Dialogue should be given priority in democracy. This has been our practice for decades. Read full news… 20 August: SC said- Government cannot run at the will of governors The Supreme Court said that elected governments cannot run at the will of governors. If a bill is passed by the state assembly and comes to the governor for the second time, then the governor cannot send it to the President. The court said that the governor does not have the right to hold back approval indefinitely. 19 August: Government said- Can the court rewrite the constitution
In the first day’s hearing on this matter, Attorney General R Venkataramani on behalf of the Central Government said on the Supreme Court’s April 2025 decision that can the court rewrite the constitution? The court considered the Governor and the President as ordinary administrative officers, while they are constitutional posts. Read full news… …………………………….. Read this news too… PM-CM will lose their post on arrest or detention for 30 days, will be applicable in crimes with 5 years+ punishment; Government brought a bill. The Prime Minister-Chief Minister or any minister will have to leave the post on arrest or detention for 30 days. The condition is that the crime for which the detention or arrest has taken place should have a provision for a punishment of 5 years or more. Home Minister Amit Shah presented three bills related to this in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. There was a lot of uproar in the Lok Sabha against all the three bills. Read full news…
