The five‑judge bench, led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P. S. Narasimha, and A. S. Chandurkar, has been examining a presidential reference. The President has sought the Court’s interpretation of Articles 32 and 361, particularly whether state governments can challenge the executive’s actions related to Bills, and whether such perceived violations of fundamental rights are enforceable via writs.
Mehta clarified that Article 32 is designed to safeguard individual fundamental rights, not the functioning of state governments, which act as repositories of public functions. Therefore, he argued, state governments cannot be treated as rights‑holders for the purpose of filing such petitions. He further contended that neither Article 32 nor Article 226—writ jurisdictions conferred upon the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively—are applicable in this context, since executive actions on Bills lie beyond judicial review.
Historically, the judicial approach to delays or inaction by Governors or the President in approving or reserving Bills has drawn scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu held that Governors cannot exercise absolute or pocket vetoes over state legislature Bills and laid down procedural limits to prevent undue delay, signalling that such inaction is subject to judicial review under appropriate circumstances. Notably, the present reference before the Court reflects a broader attempt to clarify the contours of constitutional remedies in such scenarios.
Recent questions raised during hearings revealed the Court’s concern over executive inertia. During arguments, the bench queried whether courts would be powerless to intervene if a Governor indefinitely delayed assent, effectively paralysing the legislature. The Centre, however, maintained that such disputes are better resolved through political dialogue rather than judicial orders.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had issued notices to the Centre and all states regarding this reference, aiming to determine whether the judiciary can prescribe timeframes or enforce procedures when the President or Governors handle Bills under Articles 200 and 201.
The arguments before the Constitution Bench thus hinge on balancing constitutional jurisdictions. On one hand, the Centre seeks to shield executive discretion from judicial intrusion under general writ jurisdiction. On the other, the Court must delineate limits to such discretion, especially in light of precedents like the Tamil Nadu ruling that affirm legislative primacy and guard against executive delay.