Supreme Court's Role in Constitutional Timelines: A Landmark Debate

The Supreme Court underscored its commitment to judicial review on Tuesday, asserting that courts must address constitutional questions, even amidst political controversies. This stance reaffirms the court's duty to interpret the Constitution while examining how the President and governors manage state assembly bills.

The ongoing debate revolves around whether the court can set timelines for these authorities to act, highlighting potential conflicts with the basic structure doctrine. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued against judicial intervention, citing risks to constitutional balance, while senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi emphasized that delays in assent violate constitutional duties.

With references to historical cases like Minerva Mills, the five-judge bench aims to determine if a general timeline is feasible under Article 142. The hearing continues as key legal minds debate the implications of granting governors unchecked discretion and its impact on legislative processes.

(With inputs from agencies.)