The Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu ended the misuse of “pocket veto” by Governors. It held that Article 200 doesn’t allow indefinite inaction and set clear timelines—one month for assent and three months for reconsideration—strengthening State legislatures’ authority and federal balance. By invoking Article 142 to deem delayed Bills as assented, the Court prevented democratic paralysis. While some critics call this judicial overreach, the ruling reinforces accountability and aligns with global democratic practices. It ensures Governors act constitutionally, not politically, safeguarding federalism and legislative primacy.
India’s Constitution implies separation of powers and Article 50 urges separating the judiciary from the executive. The system uses judicial review, writs, Article 142, impeachment and appointments to maintain checks and balances. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025), the Supreme Court set timelines for governors, rejected “pocket vetoes,” and used Article 142 to deem pending bills assented. The Advocates (Amendment) Bill 2025 was withdrawn after protests over Bar Council autonomy. An ICJ report flagged appointment and transparency issues. Calls continue for clearer rules and reforms to balance judicial independence and accountability
The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential Reference on July 22, 2025, to clarify the Governor’s and President’s powers in assenting to state Bills. The reference follows the Court’s April 2024 judgment setting timelines for assent, which sparked debate on judicial overreach. Fourteen key constitutional questions have been referred, including whether Governors’ and the President’s actions are justiciable, if courts can set timelines, and the scope of Article 142. The outcome will shape federalism, separation of powers, and the legislative process, influencing how state laws are enacted in India.
The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential Reference on July 22, 2025, to clarify the roles of Governors and the President in granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201. The case follows a Tamil Nadu ruling that set timelines for assent and raised debates on judicial power. Key questions include whether Governors and the President must follow ministerial advice, if their discretion is justiciable, and whether courts can set timelines. The outcome will shape federal relations, legislative processes, and the balance between executive and judicial powers.
The Supreme Court of India, while closing the Salwa Judum case, held that passing a law by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot by itself amount to contempt of court. The Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma clarified that legislation is a valid exercise of legislative power and cannot be treated as defiance of a judicial order unless found unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the principle of separation of powers, stressing that legislatures can make or amend laws, but their validity can only be tested through judicial review, not contempt proceedings.
