Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Governors, President’s Role Amid Centre–State Tussle Over Pending Bills

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a petition seeking to mandate Governors and the President to approve or return pending bills within a stipulated timeframe. The bench, which heard arguments for nearly 10 days, announced that it would deliver its judgment at a later date.

The issue has sparked intense debate across the country, particularly after the apex court earlier ruled that bills left pending for more than three months could be deemed automatically approved. Several state governments have accused Governors of deliberately delaying bills, thereby obstructing the legislative process.

During the proceedings, the Centre opposed the idea of imposing strict timelines, arguing that such judicial directions could disturb the delicate constitutional balance. It stressed that the President and Governors require sufficient time to examine bills before taking a decision.

Also Read: Bihar Elections 2025: Owaisi Vows AIMIM Will Fight with “Full Force”

However, states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab contended that indefinite delays undermine democracy. They urged the Court to issue clear guidelines to prevent Governors from keeping bills in limbo, which, they argued, hampers governance.

President Droupadi Murmu has also sought a reference from the High Court regarding aspects of the earlier ruling. The Supreme Court, in previous cases involving Tamil Nadu, had held that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills.

The upcoming verdict is expected to provide much-needed clarity on the extent of gubernatorial and presidential powers, while also determining whether their decisions fall within the scope of judicial review. With several opposition-ruled states eagerly awaiting the outcome, the ruling is likely to have wide-reaching implications for Centre–state relations and the functioning of India’s federal democracy.