NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday drew parallels with Nepal and Bangladesh because it heard a presidential reference on its April 12 order, which set deadlines for the President and Governors to clear state payments.Chief Justice BR Gavai underlined the soundness of India’s constitutional framework, remarking, “We’re pleased with our Structure… see what is occurring in our neighbouring states. Nepal, we noticed.” He was referring to the anti-corruption protests in Nepal that erupted simply two days in the past, leaving 21 useless and forcing Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to resign.Justice Vikram Nath added, “Sure, Bangladesh additionally,” invoking final 12 months’s student-led revolt that left greater than 100 useless, toppled Sheikh Hasina’s authorities, and put in an interim administration underneath Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. Each cases, the judges recommended, had been stark reminders of how constitutional breakdowns can plunge nations into turmoil.The feedback got here as Solicitor-Normal Tushar Mehta defended Governors accused of delaying payments. Mehta mentioned such delays had been uncommon, mentioning that from 1970 to 2025 solely 20 payments had been reserved for presidential consideration. He pressured that 90% of state payments are cleared inside a month.The Chief Justice, nevertheless, pushed again. “We can not take statistics… it is not going to be truthful to them. We didn’t take their statistics, how can we take yours?” he informed the Solicitor-Normal, noting objections to earlier information introduced by state governments.The listening to stems from the courtroom’s April order that sought to streamline the method for Governors and the President to behave on payments, after repeated clashes between Raj Bhavans and state governments, together with the DMK in Tamil Nadu over seven payments held up by Governor RN Ravi.By invoking Nepal and Bangladesh, the Supreme Court docket sought to underline the fragility of democratic constructions when constitutional safeguards are ignored, even because it reaffirmed delight in India’s personal system.