Image Source: Agencies

Aug 28, 2025: The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that state governments cannot use writ jurisdiction to challenge the President and Governor's actions regarding Assemblies' Bills that violate fundamental rights. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, informed the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai that the President would like the apex court's opinion on whether states can file writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution for violations of fundamental rights. He added that the President would also like an opinion on the scope of Article 361 of the Constitution, which states that the President or the Governor will not be accountable to any court for the exercise or performance of their office's powers and responsibilities or for any act they perform. Mehta told the Bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar that they have debated over these questions in the reference but the President is of the opinion that she would like to have the view of the court to know the exact legal position as issue may arise in the future.

He argued that the state's Article 32 petition against the Governor and President's actions cannot be filed because it cannot be maintained, no direction can be given to them, and the Governor and President's actions regarding the Bills are not justiciable. "Article 32 lies when there is violation of fundamental rights and state government in the constitutional scheme does not in itself have the fundamental right. Mehta stated, "It is a repository of functions that are to protect the fundamental rights of its people." The solicitor general referred to the April 8 Tamil Nadu verdict in which states were given liberty to approach the apex court directly in case timeline is not adhered by the Governor in clearing the Bills passed by the Assembly.

The CJI Gavai stated that it would not comment on the April 8 verdict of two judges, but that the Governor would not be justified in delaying the Bill for six months. Mehta submitted that one constitutional organ not discharging his duties, does not entitle the court to direct another constitutional organ.
The CJI said, "Yes. We know what your argument is? If this court does not decide the matter for 10 years, would it be justified for the President to issue an order."

The hearing has begun. On August 26, the highest court considered whether the constitutional functionary's independent power to withhold a bill would mean that even money bills could be blocked and whether the court should remain powerless in the event that a governor delays assent to bills indefinitely. The court asked the questions after some BJP-ruled states said that "assent to a law cannot be given by court" and defended the autonomy of governors and presidents in giving their approval to bills passed by a legislature. The state governments also contended that judiciary cannot be a pill for every disease.

The Presidential reference is currently before the highest court, where it will be discussed as to whether the court has the authority to impose deadlines on Governors and the President for addressing state Assembly bills. In May, President Droupadi Murmu used his Article 143(1) authority to inquire from the highest court about whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the President's discretion when dealing with state Assembly Bills.