Guardians of the Charter: How India’s Supreme Court is Drawing a Red Line Against Democratic Decay 

In a significant hearing, the Indian Supreme Court framed a dispute over gubernatorial delays in approving state bills as a critical defense of democratic principles, using the recent constitutional collapses in Nepal and Bangladesh as a sobering cautionary tale. While the Solicitor General defended governors by presenting statistics on the rarity of such delays, the court remained skeptical, emphasizing that the issue was one of constitutional propriety and not statistical volume.

The justices implicitly warned that the erosion of democratic norms—such as unelected officials obstructing elected legislatures—poses a fundamental threat to stability, as seen in neighboring nations. By rejecting arguments from tradition and reaffirming its April verdict that set strict deadlines for assent, the court positioned itself as a vital bulwark against the decay of federalism and the rule of law, asserting that vigilant institutional integrity is essential to preventing the kind of violent upheaval that has plagued the region.

Guardians of the Charter: How India’s Supreme Court is Drawing a Red Line Against Democratic Decay 

Subtitle: As neighbouring nations convulse in constitutional collapse, the Indian judiciary’s firm stance on gubernatorial overreach signals a crucial defense of federal principles and the rule of law. 

Introduction: A Chilling Echo from the Neighborhood 

In the hallowed halls of India’s Supreme Court, a constitutional debate over the procedural delay of state bills was suddenly framed by a stark, sobering reality playing out just beyond the nation’ borders. As Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented data defending the actions of state governors, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai interjected, directing the court’s attention not to a legal text, but to the evening news. “We are proud of our Constitution… see what is happening in our neighbouring states. Nepal, we saw.” 

This was not a casual observation. It was a profound judicial warning. The Chief Justice’s reference to the deadly anti-corruption protests in Nepal that claimed over 20 lives, quickly echoed by Justice Vikram Nath’s mention of the 2024 Bangladesh crisis, served as a chilling backdrop. It transformed a dry legal technicality into a high-stakes discourse on the very survival of democratic norms. The message was clear: the erosion of constitutional machinery starts with small acts of overreach, and India’s guardians of the Constitution are determined to draw a line in the sand. 

The Heart of the Matter: More Than Just Delayed Bills 

At its core, the presidential reference under Article 143 challenges the Supreme Court’s own April 12 verdict, which set strict deadlines for President Droupadi Murmu and state governors to clear bills sent to them by elected legislatures. The court had deemed the Tamil Nadu Governor’s indefinite withholding of seven bills as “arbitrary” and “illegal,” asserting that a bill passed for a second time must receive assent within 30 days. 

The Union government’s challenge, presented by Solicitor General Mehta, argues that this judicial imposition fetters the discretion granted to the President and Governors by the Constitution. He presented statistics to normalize the delay, claiming that from 1970 to 2025, only 20 bills had been reserved by Governors—a tiny fraction of the total passed. 

However, the court’s skepticism was palpable. Chief Justice Gavai pointedly questioned the selective use of statistics, asking, “We cannot take statistics… it will not be fair to them. How can we take yours?” This highlights a critical insight: the issue is not one of volume, but of principle and precedent. The question is not how many bills are stalled, but whether they can be stalled indefinitely, creating a constitutional vacuum where the executive appointee of the central government can effectively veto the work of a democratically elected state government. 

This taps into a deeper, more troubling pattern in Indian federalism. States ruled by parties opposed to the central government—Tamil Nadu (DMK), Kerala (CPI(M)), and Punjab (AAP)—have repeatedly accused their Governors of acting as political agents, not constitutional custodians. The Governor’s office, intended to be an apolitical bridge between the centre and the state, risks being weaponized, creating a permanent state of political friction and legislative paralysis. 

A Tale of Two Neighbours: Nepal and Bangladesh as Cautionary Tales 

The Supreme Court’s invocation of Nepal and Bangladesh was not a random aside. It was a masterstroke of contextual framing, elevating the debate from a legal squabble to a existential question of governance. 

Nepal’s Gen-Z Revolt: The protests referenced erupted over widespread allegations of corruption and governmental failure. While sparked by specific grievances, the underlying fuel was a profound loss of faith in the entire political class and the structures meant to hold them accountable. The result was not a mere change of government but the resignation of the Prime Minister and chaos on the streets, demonstrating a complete breakdown of the social contract. The state could no longer channel the people’s will through established institutions, leading to violent, extra-constitutional expression. 

Bangladesh’s 2024 Upheaval: Similarly, the student-led protests in Bangladesh that toppled Sheikh Hasina’s government were a violent eruption of pent-up frustration. The ransacking of government buildings, including the Prime Minister’s residence, was a visceral symbol of the rule of law being replaced by the rule of the mob. The transfer of power to an interim administration, while stabilizing, was itself an extraordinary measure outside the normal constitutional cycle. 

The “larger point about a complete break-down of Constitution and rule-of-law,” as the article notes, is the crucial parallel. These crises did not happen overnight. They were the culmination of a gradual process where institutions were weakened, democratic norms were eroded, and the channels for peaceful dissent and political alternation were clogged. The Indian Supreme Court, in its wisdom, recognized that the gubernatorial impasse is a symptom of this same degenerative disease—the use of official power for political ends, which slowly poisons public trust in democracy itself. 

The Supreme Court as the Bulwark: Principle Over Precedent 

In facing this presidential reference, the Supreme Court is performing its most sacred duty: acting as the ultimate interpreter and defender of the Constitution’s basic structure. The Solicitor General’s argument from tradition—“the country has been functioning for the past 75 years”—is precisely what the bench seems to be pushing back against. Survival is not the same as thriving, and past practice does not sanctify a constitutional impropriety. 

The court’s stance suggests a shift towards a principles-based rather than a precedence-based approach in this matter. It is asserting that certain democratic fundamentals are non-negotiable: 

• The Primacy of the Elected Legislature: The will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives in the state assembly, must be respected. An unelected official cannot be allowed to nullify that will through inaction. 

• Timeliness as a Component of Justice: Infinite delay is effectively a denial. By setting a firm deadline, the court is ensuring that governance and legislative intent are not victim to political gamesmanship. 

• Federalism as a Living Reality: Indian federalism requires that states have the space to legislate and govern on matters within their domain without being subject to an unaccountable veto from the centre via the Governor. 

By drawing a direct line between these principles and the chaos in neighbouring nations, the court is making a powerful argument for judicial vigilance. It is positing that its role is not to meddle in politics but to protect the very framework that prevents politics from descending into chaos. 

Conclusion: A Sovereign Warning for Indian Democracy 

The Supreme Court’s hearing was more than a legal proceeding; it was a moment of profound constitutional reflection. The mention of Nepal and Bangladesh served as a sovereign warning—a reminder that no democracy is immune to collapse and that its preservation requires constant, vigilant defense of its institutions. 

The dispute over gubernatorial assent is a test case. Will India allow its complex, diverse federal democracy to be managed through dialogue and established law, or will it permit the rise of unaccountable power centers that sow discord and distrust? The Supreme Court’s current inclination is firmly for the former. 

Its pride in the Indian Constitution is not born of arrogance, but of a clear-eyed understanding of the alternative. By insisting on timelines, rejecting selective statistics, and contextualizing its role within a broader regional struggle for democratic survival, the court is striving to ensure that the echoes of violence from across the border remain just that—echoes, and not India’s future. In doing so, it reaffirms its role as the ultimate guardian of the world’s largest democracy, learning from the tragedies of its neighbours to fortify its own republic.