Today, on 10th September, on Day 10 of the Presidential Reference Row on Assent to Bills, Chief Justice of India questioned the Centre, asking, “How can you claim ‘false alarm’ if Governors have been sitting on bills for four years?”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is continuing the hearing of the Presidential Reference on whether fixed timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President for giving assent to State bills.
The matter is being heard under Article 143 of the Constitution, after the Court’s earlier ruling in April 2025 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor.
A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, was addressing a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Gavai questioned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, asking,
“How can you say…if bills are pending for 4 years before Governor?”
In response, Mehta pointed out that only 20 out of 17,000 bills had been withheld from 1970 to 2025, stating that 90 percent of bills receive assent within a month.
However, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi challenged this presentation of data, noting that the Solicitor General had previously opposed their attempt to submit their own statistics.
CJI Gavai concurred that the data should not be one-sided, stating,
“We cannot take the data…it will not be fair to them. We will not go into it. Then we have to unnecessarily go into data…earlier you objected to their data.”
The Court also raised questions about the relevance of the statistics.
Justice Nath commented,
“The nation is continuing with the Constitution and democracy for 75 years irrespective whether 50 percent bills have been held or 90 percent bills have been withheld.”
He added,
“We are proud of our Constitution. Look what is happening in neighboring States, like what happened in Nepal yesterday…”
CJI Gavai further noted that the events prior to 2014 and those occurring after are not pertinent to the Court’s considerations.
Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy, representing the State of Telangana, urged the Court to consider that the Constitution was established during a time when a strong unitary center was deemed necessary due to prevailing tensions. He argued that the powers of the Governor should not be expanded now.
Reddy stated,
“Your lordships are looking at the law after 75 years when such tendencies are not as concerning or imminent. The necessity of trying to dilute a provision against the State’s interests and in favor of the Governor…the necessity may be lesser because the Indian Union has gathered strength. When your lordships look at the situational difference between the time the Constitution was made when they felt we can have Governor for certain oversight functions…even then if Constituent Assembly members felt Governor’s powers need to be restricted, there is no reason to expand that role after 75 years,”
He further explained that the Governor’s discretion is limited to the decision of reserving a bill for the President’s consideration. Reddy contended that if Article 200 were interpreted to grant the Governor the discretion to withhold assent, it could have similar implications for Article 111.
He added,
“Because the President could then equally claim such discretion. It cannot be that in a democratic setup at the Union level there is no such discretion, but at the State level the Governor has it,”
Senior Advocate P. Wilson, representing a political party, argued that the Court should not serve as an intermediary between the Governor and the process of a bill becoming law. He referenced the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, stating that it addresses the questions posed by the President.
He remarked,
“This judgment in place is really helping the States,”
Wilson further asserted that granting assent does not constitute an exercise of legislative power as defined by the Constitution.
He explained,
“It is a part of legislative procedure. And whether the procedure prescribed by the Constitution before enacting the law is followed or not can always be looked into by this Court,”
Advocate Avani Bansal submitted that in the debate between the legislature and the executive, the citizens of India cannot be treated as sitting ducks. She argued that it was time to recognise the right to time as a concomitant right under Article 14.
Bansal said,
“If the Governors or the President do not act as constitutional functionaries within the time threshold that is required of them, irrespective of specific timelines, because we have “as soon as possible” as a higher threshold, then, my Lords, it is an arbitrary act. And we have a series of judgments saying that arbitrariness and equality are sworn enemies,”
She added,
“My argument is that if Governors and Presidents do not act in time, even if there is no specific timeline, but they fail to act “as soon as possible,” then why, as a citizen of India, do I have no right? In multiple cases we have recognised the right to privacy, the right to media, and other derivative rights. My submission is that the right to time must also be recognized as a concomitant right,”
Advocate General Amit Kumar made brief submissions for the State of Meghalaya.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented an advocate and a former Director General of Police (DGP).
Sankaranarayanan said,
“The advisory opinion is a report, merely a report. What flows from that is critical for the purpose of answering those 14 questions,”
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, submitted that it supports the Union government on all aspects but one.
It said,
“We have supported the Union on all issues but to say that Article 32 will not lie in all cases by State, that is something which we cannot accept. Because where issues of pollution, man-made disasters and sub judice matters are pending, in those situations one cannot say that you should not be going under Article 32,”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in his rebuttal, stated that the Governor does not possess an absolute or unrestricted right to indefinitely hold a bill without justification.
He argued that the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction is binding.
He said,
“Your lordships’ opinion is a law declared and your lordships can declare that this particular judgment or the view expressed does not lay down the correct law. Your lordships can even overrule. It is not just a communication or conversation between the President of India and Supreme Court,”
Mehta challenged the notion that the Governor serves merely as a “postman” in the legislative process.
He remarked,
“They have argued that he is only a postman with only two differences, that is beacon on his car and has a bigger house. That is the flawed constitutional argument,”
He also contended that certain states, where Governors have withheld assent to bills, cannot claim “felt necessities” to amend the Constitution. He emphasized that states should not approach the Supreme Court to reduce it to a “position of headmaster.”
He added,
“More and more cases are not coming before your lordships because the problems are solved…outside the courtrooms,”
In response, Justice Narasimha noted,
“It is not a felt necessity, Constitution is an evolving subject. How do we weigh the proposition that you advance that Governor at the outset can say he will not assent that should be interpreted in the context of federalism and democracy. We need to balance both are as important.”
Justice Narasimha further queried whether there is an obligation for a consultative process once a bill is passed by the Houses and presented to the Governor.
He added,
“Because when the Bill comes to the Governor, if he sends it back with a message, it gives the Assembly as well as the Government their recognition and role to play,”
Mehta replied that it is not necessary for the Governor to withhold assent at the outset.
He explained,
“He may have a consultative process. He can persuade them. Suppose part of the Bill conflicts with a Central subject. Rather than referring it to the President, he might call the Minister and say these two provisions are problematic; if you agree, I can return it to the House, you correct those…”
Mehta is scheduled to continue his submissions on Thursday, with a decision on the Presidential reference likely to be reserved tomorrow.
Earlier, On August 19, Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani raised concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling from April, questioning whether the Court has the authority to amend the Constitution. He argued that the Court had portrayed the President as merely an “ordinary statutory authority.”
The following day, August 20, the Court noted that if a Governor is permitted to indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by the State legislature, it would place the elected State government at the mercy of an unelected Governor.
During the hearing on August 21, the Court inquired whether it should remain passive while a Governor delays a bill for years. Similar remarks were made by the Court on August 26.
Earlier, On August 28, the Tamil Nadu government contended that allowing Governors to withhold assent to even money bills would effectively grant them the power of a “super Chief Minister” of the State.
Earlier, On September 2, the Court stated that its forthcoming decision regarding the Presidential reference on Governors’ powers over State legislature bills would remain unaffected by the political affiliations of the current or past governments. It also questioned the implications if the Governor and the President fail to adhere to the timeline established by the Court.
Additionally, On September 3, the governments of Karnataka, West Bengal, and Himachal Pradesh expressed that the Union government was attempting to “abrogate the fulcrum of Constitution” by challenging the Court’s ruling from April 11.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to seek clarification from the Supreme Court regarding whether judicial orders could impose timelines on the President’s discretion when dealing with state assembly bills.
Background
The Presidential Reference followed the April 8 Supreme Court ruling which held that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on Bills passed by State legislatures. Though Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Court said Governors must act within a reasonable time and cannot stall the democratic process.
The Court also held that under Article 201, the President must decide on Bills within three months. If delayed, reasons must be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.
The exact words of the April 8 judgment were:
“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.”
President Murmu later sent 14 questions to the Court, asking whether the judiciary could impose such deadlines and whether the concept of “deemed assent” was constitutionally valid.
While the Centre backs the Reference, arguing that Governors’ powers cannot be curtailed by judicial timelines, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have asked the Court to dismiss it as not maintainable.
These are the 14 key questions raised by the President:
- “What are the constitutional options before a governor when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is Governor bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?”
- “Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicially review in relation to the actions of Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit and the manner of exercise of powers by Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by Governor?”
- “Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?”
- “In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of President, is President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when Governor reserves a bill for President’s assent or otherwise?”
- “Are decisions of Governor and President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?”
- “Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by President/Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is a law made by the state legislature a law in force without the assent of Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In view of the proviso to Article 145 of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five judges?”
- “… the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions/passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?”
- “Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union government and the state governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?”
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | SPL. REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A
Read Attachment- Questions referred by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
