Strain on labour

The recent easing of US-China tariffs has undoubtedly pulled China back from the brink of a social and economic rupture.

- 

In a significant constitutional moment, the President of India has sought the Supreme Court's advisory opinion under Article 143(1) on whether timelines can be judicially imposed on constitutional authorities – Governors and the President – when acting on bills passed by state legislatures. This move is more than a legal formality; it is a measured step by the Union government to recalibrate the delicate architecture of India's federal democracy. At the heart of this issue is the Supreme Court's April 8 ruling that placed time-bound obligations on Governors and the President to act on state legislation. The judgment arose from Tamil Nadu's protracted tussle with its Governor over several bills pending assent. The court declared that constitutional functionaries cannot remain in prolonged inaction, especially when such delays obstruct the legislative will of an elected assembly. What makes the Court's intervention momentous is its use of implied timelines – deriving urgency from principles of constitutional morality and federal balance, even though Articles 200 and 201 do not expressly stipulate deadlines. While this may be seen as judicial activism, it is also a response to repeated patterns of Governors withholding or sitting indefinitely on bills, sometimes even after legislatures re-pass them – an action that constitutionally leaves the Governor with no discretion. The Presidential Reference now tests the contours of this intervention. Can courts prescribe methods or deadlines where the Constitution is silent? Can the discretionary space afforded to the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 be judicially structured without violating the separation of powers? In raising these questions, the Reference appropriately separates institutional mechanism from political controversy. The President, as the ceremonial head of the Union, is acting within her constitutional role in seeking clarity – not contesting the court's