Supreme Court Deadlines Standoff: A Test for Federalism and Governance

Following President Droupadi Murmu's questioning of the Supreme Court's decision mandating deadlines for Governors and the President to act on state Bills, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra expressed serious concerns about its implications for federalism and governance. He emphasized the critical constitutional issue of whether these authorities can delay laws from elected state governments, affecting citizens' rights to governance.

Luthra stated, "This reference aims to discern the future actions of governors and presidents when laws are pending. Can they hold up legislation, nullifying governance? This challenges federalism and citizens' governance rights. Without clear action, constitutional authorities might obstruct lawmaking, depriving citizens of governance."

Former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar echoed these concerns, commending the President for seeking clarity from the Supreme Court. "The President's reference is commendable, as it addresses a conflict between judiciary and executive, which requires resolution for the country's benefit," Kumar remarked. He noted the issue's significant legal and political ramifications, emphasizing its fundamental implications for the balance of power in India's democracy.

President Murmu's concerns emerged post the Supreme Court's April 8 verdict in the Tamil Nadu Government versus Governor case, which set deadlines for deciding on state Bills. She argued that the Constitution lacks specific timelines, referencing Article 200 and Article 201, which outline procedural powers but do not impose deadlines for Governors and the President's assent to state Bills.

(With inputs from agencies.)