**Supreme Court to Hear Central Government’s Affidavit on Governor and Presidential Powers**
In a pivotal Supreme Court hearing scheduled for Tuesday, the Central Government has submitted a comprehensive affidavit addressing the constitutional roles of Governors and the President in relation to state legislation. This case will be examined by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, alongside Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar. The bench will deliberate on 14 constitutional questions referred by the President under Article 143, which arise from a previous Supreme Court ruling concerning delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor in approving state bills.
The Union Government’s written submission, presented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argues that any judicial attempt to impose timelines on constitutional authorities like the Governor and the President could disrupt the delicate balance of power and lead to “constitutional chaos.” The Centre emphasizes that the Indian Constitution establishes the co-equality of the legislature, executive, and judiciary, maintained through a system of checks and balances.
Key points from the affidavit include:
– Articles 200 and 201, which outline the powers of Governors regarding bills, do not specify any time limits, reflecting a deliberate choice by the Constitution’s framers.
– The Governor’s authority under Article 200 is comprehensive and not subject to judicial review.
– Courts cannot invoke Article 142 to override explicit constitutional provisions or alter the established constitutional framework.
The affidavit warns that any judicial intervention could result in one branch of government “usurping powers not vested in it,” thus exceeding its jurisdiction. This issue originated from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government, which led to a Supreme Court ruling in April 2025 stating that Governors cannot indefinitely delay bills passed by state legislatures. Following this ruling, the President sought constitutional clarity under Article 143, posing questions regarding the obligations of the Governor and President concerning bill assent.
Among the questions raised are:
– Is the Governor obligated to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers?
– Can the Supreme Court set a timeline for the Governor or President to act on bills?
– Does a Presidential reference allow for the reopening of matters already settled by the Supreme Court?
In response, the Tamil Nadu government has argued that the Presidential reference is unnecessary and should be dismissed, asserting that the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in the Tamil Nadu v. Governor case has already resolved these issues. The Tamil Nadu government contends that Article 143 cannot be utilized to review or nullify prior Supreme Court decisions, and that the reference seeks to revisit a binding judgment, which should be declined by the court.
**FAQ**
**Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court hearing regarding the powers of Governors and the President?**
A: The hearing addresses critical constitutional questions about the authority of Governors and the President in relation to state legislation, particularly concerning the timely assent to bills, which has implications for the balance of power among government branches.