ndia’s warning to the Supreme Court about “constitutional disorder” over bill assent timelines explained. Learn about the 2025 ruling, governors’ roles, and Centre-state tensions in this simple guide.
In recent news, the Indian government has raised a strong warning to the Supreme Court about something called “constitutional disorder.” This term might sound complex, but it boils down to concerns over how the country’s top court is stepping into areas meant for other parts of the government. The issue revolves around how state bills become laws and the roles of governors and the President. If you’re curious about this ongoing debate, this article breaks it down step by step in simple terms. We’ll cover the background, the court’s decision, the government’s pushback, and what it all means for India’s Constitution.
What Is the Bill Assent Process in India?
To understand the controversy, let’s start with the basics of how laws are made in India. India has a federal system, meaning power is shared between the central government and state governments. When a state legislature (like a state assembly) passes a bill, it doesn’t automatically become law. It needs approval, or “assent,” from the governor of that state.
- Role of the Governor: Governors are appointed by the President and act as the head of the state. Under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, a governor has four options when a bill comes to them:
- Give assent (approve it).
- Withhold assent (reject it).
- Send it back to the state legislature for reconsideration.
- Refer it to the President for advice (especially if it affects central matters).
- Role of the President: If the governor refers the bill to the President under Article 201, the President can approve it, reject it, or send it back. Importantly, the Constitution doesn’t set any strict deadlines for these decisions. This gives governors and the President some flexibility to review bills carefully.
This process ensures a balance between state and central powers. But problems arise when governors or the President delay decisions for too long, leaving bills in limbo. States like Tamil Nadu and Kerala have complained about such delays, saying they disrupt governance.
Must Read: Only Two Companies in the World Are Worth More Than India GDP
The Supreme Court’s April 2025 Ruling: A Game-Changer?
The spark for this warning came from a Supreme Court decision on April 8, 2025. The case started when Tamil Nadu challenged its governor for delaying assent to 10 bills. The Supreme Court, in a ruling by a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, stepped in to address these delays.
Key points from the ruling:
- Governors must act “as soon as possible” on bills. If a bill is sent back and re-passed by the state legislature, the governor has just one month to decide.
- If the governor refers a bill to the President, the President must decide within three months.
- The court called long delays “illegal” and said they go against the Constitution’s spirit. It even suggested that if no action is taken, the bill could be considered approved (a concept called “deemed assent”).
The court argued that endless delays undermine democracy and the will of elected state governments. This was seen as a win for states facing what they call “gubernatorial overreach,” where governors (often seen as central government representatives) block state initiatives.
Why Did the Indian Government Warn About ‘Constitutional Disorder’?
The central government, also called the Union government, didn’t agree with this ruling. In August 2025, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, it filed arguments in the Supreme Court warning that the April decision could lead to “constitutional disorder.”
- What Does ‘Constitutional Disorder’ Mean? Simply put, it refers to a situation where the balance between the three branches of government—legislature (law-makers), executive (government), and judiciary (courts)—gets upset. The framers of India’s Constitution designed these branches to check each other without one dominating. If the court starts setting rules for the executive (like timelines for governors), it might overstep its role, causing confusion or “disorder.”
- Government’s Main Arguments:
- No Timelines in the Constitution: Articles 200 and 201 don’t mention any deadlines. Imposing them is like rewriting the Constitution, which only Parliament can do under Article 368.
- Discretionary Powers: Governors and the President have the right to think deeply about bills, especially if they involve national interests or conflicts with central laws. Forcing quick decisions could lead to hasty mistakes.
- Separation of Powers: The judiciary can’t take over executive functions. Mehta said governors aren’t just “rubber stamps” for state governments—they represent the Centre and ensure bills follow the Constitution.
- Risk of Overreach: If courts start dictating timelines, it could set a bad example, allowing judges to interfere in other areas like policy-making.
The government stressed that this isn’t about delaying bills on purpose but about protecting the Constitution’s original design.
Must Read: Economist Jeffrey Sachs Blasts ‘Stupid’ Trump India Tariffs, Warns of Global Fallout
The Presidential Reference: Seeking Clarity from the Supreme Court
To resolve this, President Droupadi Murmu used Article 143 of the Constitution in May 2025. This article allows the President to ask the Supreme Court for advice on important legal questions. It’s like getting an expert opinion before things escalate.
The President referred 14 questions, including:
- Can courts impose fixed timelines on governors and the President?
- Is “deemed assent” (automatic approval after delay) allowed?
- Are the decisions of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 open to court review (justiciable)?
- What happens if a governor withholds assent without reasons?
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, again led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, will hear this from August 19 to September 9, 2025. States like Tamil Nadu and Kerala have opposed this reference, calling it a hidden way to challenge the April ruling.
Why Does This Matter? Implications for Indian Democracy
This debate highlights deeper issues in India’s federal structure:
- Centre-State Relations: Governors are often accused of acting as agents of the ruling party at the Centre, especially in opposition-ruled states. Delays in bill assent have fueled tensions in places like Punjab, West Bengal, and Delhi.
- Judicial Activism vs. Overreach: The Supreme Court has a history of stepping in to fix governance gaps, like in environmental or rights cases. But critics say this ruling goes too far into executive territory.
- Impact on Governance: If timelines are enforced, states might pass laws faster without central roadblocks. But if not, delays could continue, affecting policies on education, health, or local issues.
- Broader Constitutional Balance: It raises questions about how flexible the Constitution should be. Should courts interpret it strictly (as per the text) or broadly (to meet modern needs)?
In essence, this case could redefine how power is shared in India, affecting everything from state autonomy to national unity.
Current Status and What to Watch Next
As of August 17, 2025, the Supreme Court hearings are just days away. The outcome could either uphold the April ruling or side with the government, potentially changing how bills are handled forever.
This isn’t just a legal tussle—it’s about ensuring India’s democracy runs smoothly without one branch overpowering others.