DMK calls it 'good judgment'; opinion 'positive', says Kerala, Pg8

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court stated that no fixed timeline exists for the President or Governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures.
• Prolonged, unexplained inaction by a Governor may invite judicial scrutiny.
• Tamil Nadu and Kerala had approached the Supreme Court regarding delays in Governors approving bills.
• Between September 2021 and October 2025, Tamil Nadu's Governor cleared 81% of 211 bills received.
• Kerala's Law Minister welcomed the Supreme Court's opinion, stating that withholding bills indefinitely is against federalism and democracy.

Detailed Insights:

• The Supreme Court's opinion came in response to a Presidential Reference made after a two-judge bench fixed timelines for presidential and gubernatorial action in April.
• The prior two-judge bench ruling stated that a bill can only be reserved for the President in the first instance.
• Tamil Nadu reported that of the bills cleared by the Governor, 73 were approved within a week, 61 within a month, and 27 within three months.
• Some politically sensitive bills in Tamil Nadu, particularly those related to university reforms, are still pending or reserved for presidential consideration.
• The Kerala government argued that the failure to decide on bills in a time-bound manner violates constitutional principles.
• The Supreme Court has clarified that there is an option for approaching the court under limited judicial review if bills are indefinitely withheld.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Presidential Reference: Advice sought by the President of India from the Supreme Court on a question of law or fact.
• Federalism: A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.
• Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative or executive actions.