Once upon a quiet morning in Delhi – just yesterday – a constitutional clock began ticking—not on the walls of North Block, not in the Parliament’s echoing halls—but from the Courtroom Number One of the Supreme Court of India. The justices weren’t merely interpreting law that day; they were asking a question that shook the silence of Raisina Hill:

“Can the President of India keep a Bill waiting forever?”

That one question has now turned into a national debate—on federalism, legislative sanctity, and what critics call judicial overreach. But is it really overreach, or is it just the judiciary doing what it must when others don’t?

The Trigger: A Delayed Assent and a Waiting State

At the heart of it lies a chain of bills—some from non-BJP-ruled states—that were passed by state legislatures, sent to governors, and from there, made their way into the silent corridors of Rashtrapati Bhavan, only to sit without response. One of them was a Tamil Nadu bill on NEET exemption, others followed from Telangana, Kerala, and Punjab.

Months passed. Even years. No assent. No rejection. Just silence.

In constitutional language, this isn’t just a delay. It’s a denial of democracy, where elected representatives are told, without being told, that their laws don’t matter.

Enter the Supreme Court: A Gentle Reminder with a Firm Hand

In April 2025, the Supreme Court took a firm stance. It directed that the President of India must act on bills referred to her within a “reasonable time”—not exceeding three months.

It was not a command to pass a bill. It was not a push to reject it either. It was merely a constitutional alarm clock—saying “You must act. Democracy cannot wait indefinitely.”

The Backlash: Overreach or Oversight?

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar soon issued a sharp response. “The judiciary is turning into a super-parliament,” he warned. “Can courts now direct the President of India?”

This criticism echoes a concern many have raised in recent years: Is the judiciary crossing lines? Is it stepping into the shoes of the executive or legislature?

But Here’s the Counterpoint: Constitutional Silence Must Be Filled, Not Exploited

Let us be clear. The Supreme Court did not issue this direction under whim. It exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142—to do complete justice. And what could be more just than ensuring a legislative process reaches its logical end?

The Constitution never imagined that a Governor or the President could sit on a bill indefinitely. Our founding fathers didn’t envision executive silence as a political tool. And when constitutional gaps are weaponized into paralysis, judicial intervention is not overreach—it is oversight.

The Real Issue: Constitutional Morality and Federal Fairness

This case isn’t just about timelines. It’s about:

• Federalism: When State Governments are unable to enforce laws passed by their legislatures, what message does it send about India’s unity in diversity?
• Legislative Respect: Laws passed by elected assemblies deserve an answer—yes, no, or return with objections—not eternal limbo.
• Institutional Responsibility: The President, bound by the advice of the Union Cabinet under Article 74, cannot be made a political shield.

What About Separation of Powers?

The separation of powers doctrine, often quoted in such debates, does not mean isolation. It means each organ must act within its role, and when one fails, another must intervene to preserve constitutional balance.

Think of it like a relay race. If the runner holding the baton stops mid-track, someone must nudge him—not to take the baton, but to remind him to keep moving.

In Closing: The Constitution is Not a Museum

It’s a living document. And sometimes, when the pens of legislators are paused and the signatures of executives are stalled, it is the gavel of the judiciary that must gently knock on the gates of democracy.

“Silence in governance is not neutrality. It is a choice. And when that silence stifles democracy, the courts are not only allowed—but obliged—to act.”

So no, this was not judicial overreach. It was constitutional stewardship. And the bell that rang from the Supreme Court was not a rebellion—it was a reminder that time, law, and democracy must all keep moving forward.