Two, the court was aware of the historic nature of the judgment and carefully considered the question of judicial overreach — one that has already been raised by Kerala governor Rajendra Arlekar. “It is clear as a noon day, that no exercise of power under the Constitution is beyond the pale of judicial review,” the court held, citing previous judgments to establish that setting timelines for constitutional functionaries was not unprecedented.

And three, the court’s decision to extend this timeline discipline to the presidential office — holding that the President must decide within three months of receiving a bill from a governor, and must convey reasons if there is a delay beyond this period — underlines the court’s seriousness in etching the constitutional bounds of the federal government and the Raj Bhavan, but also opens up questions. At a future date, could a state government approach the top court against the President? Could the apex court haul Rashtrapati Bhavan in front of it? And how would this potential legal face-off between two of the most important nodes of our constitutional framework look like? The answers will reshape not only Centre-state relations and electoral polity, but also our democracy. But for one, it is a win for federalism.