Today, On 26th August, The Supreme Court on Day 5 of the Presidential Reference hearing questioned if it must remain powerless when Governors withhold assent to State Bills for years, stressing that indefinite delays cannot stall the democratic process or override legislative will.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed ongoing concerns about the implications of the President of India or State Governors potentially delaying their assent to Bills passed by elected State Legislatures for extended periods.
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.
This reference questions the Court’s April decision that established timelines for the President and Governor to make decisions on 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.
The Court asked,
“Suppose a bill is passed in 2020… Will the court be powerless if there is no consent even in 2025?”
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the Madhya Pradesh government, stated that such issues should be left for Parliament to resolve. He noted that discussions should not start with the assumption that the discretionary powers granted to the President or Governors will be misused.
Other senior counsels, including those representing the states of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Goa, Chhattisgarh, and Haryana, echoed Kaul’s sentiment, arguing that the Supreme Court should not have set deadlines for the President or State Governors regarding these matters.
During Today’s hearing, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul emphasized the constitutional discretion afforded to the Governor and the President regarding the approval of bills.
He remarked,
“As far as timelines are concerned, it is impossible to say within this time the Governor or President must decide,”
Addressing the scope of judicial review related to bills, Kaul stated,
“Where there are no justiciable standards for a certain action, it will not be susceptible to judicial process. No one is saying power of judicial review is not implicit but there will be certain powers which will not have justiciability aligned to them.”
He further argued that the Court cannot impose timelines and then subject the process to judicial review.
CJI Gavai questioned why a Governor should be allowed to delay action on a bill indefinitely after it has been approved by both houses of a State legislature. In reply, Kaul suggested that the matter should be left for Parliament to decide.
He remarked,
“The starting point of this debate can’t be there is vacuum. It can’t be a presumption that there will be misuse,”
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing the State of Maharashtra, argued that the Constitution’s framers established a system where the Union government has the authority to prevent a State assembly’s bill from becoming law, but emphasized that this is a matter of higher discretion.
He stated,
“The language of Article 201 does not admit to any such limitation [against veto],”
He added,
“Using the word ‘veto’ would be an uncharitable characterization. Yes, he has the power to withhold Veto is a word we use for personal interest and the Governor does not have so.”
CJI Gavai inquired whether the Union government could exercise such power even if the bill pertains to List 2 (State List), to which Salve confirmed.
At this point, CJI Gavai referenced BR Ambedkar’s speech, where he noted that the Union government would operate within its designated spheres, except in emergencies.
Justice Narasimha commented that if a Governor can initially withhold a bill, they could also withhold a money bill. Salve agreed, stating that the Governor is indeed able to do so.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta added that the issue is moot since a money bill is introduced with the Governor’s recommendation under Article 207.
Salve further noted,
“If the bill undergoes discussion on the floor of the house…and goes through amendments…the Governor may withhold assent.”
He argued against the notion that assent must follow after a bill is passed, asserting,
“It is not a feature of Indian federalism that an assent must follow after a few rounds of confabulations. We have a limited federalism with the hope that all these functionaries will act with wisdom.”
Salve emphasized that the Governor serves as a communication link between the Union and the States.
He added,
“It would be hard to believe that in a serious matter brewing between the two, Governor withholds a bill. The Union would have no role to play. This is how Constitution works,”
Salve concluded that while the Court can clarify powers, the actions of a high constitutional authority should not be subject to judicial review.
He stated,
“When there are no condition precedent, then the question is how will judicial review apply. There is no way that without making Governor answerable that you can judge why a particular bill was withheld by the Governor,”
Moreover, he contended that the Court could inquire about the Governor’s decision, but not the reasoning behind it.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing the State of Rajasthan, noted that the Constitution’s authors anticipated that a Governor could withhold assent at the outset. Singh argued that assent under Article 200 has been recognized as a legislative act.
He concluded,
“Governor being part of the legislative process… thus no occasion of issuing mandamus,” .
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the states of Uttar Pradesh and Orissa, argued that both the President and the Governor possess complete functional autonomy.
Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, advocating for the State of Goa, stated that the judiciary cannot assume a role where it grants deemed assent for legislation.
He remarked,
“Constitution does not envisage a concept of deemed assent and thus the same cannot be included by judicial fiat.”
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Chhattisgarh, expressed that imposing timelines on Governors is nearly disrespectful. He further argued that Article 32 petitions would not serve as a remedy for the withholding of assent.
He explained,
“Please see Article 253. Even if it is a State subject, Governor has the power to withhold. Assembly may be under some compulsion or compelling situation. Then what do we do? Governor by not assenting maintains the balance,”
Senior Advocate Vinay Navre also contended that Governors have the authority to withhold assent to state bills.
Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar added,
“If someone moves the Court (raising the question of) how long is too long for the Governor not to act? In what circumstances, would court draw a line? (Courts have held that) there can be no mandamus to legislate. Now, can Court say three months have gone by, that was enough time for the (Governor) to exercise his discretion?”
The matter will resume on August 28, when the opposing sides are scheduled to put forward their arguments before the Supreme Court.
Earlier, On August 19, the Court examined the maintainability of the reference. During the proceedings, Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani challenged the Supreme Court’s ruling from April, questioning whether the Court has the authority to amend the Constitution.
The Court remarked, On August 20, that permitting a Governor to indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by the State legislature would subject the elected State government to the arbitrary decisions of an unelected Governor.
In the subsequent hearing on August 21, the Court inquired whether it should remain passive when a Governor delays action on a bill passed by the legislature for an extended period.
The ruling in question was delivered by a Bench led by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. The Supreme Court concluded that Governors must act within a reasonable timeframe and that constitutional silence cannot be used to obstruct the democratic process.
The Court stated that although Article 200 does not define a specific time limit, it should not be interpreted as allowing the Governor to delay indefinitely in acting on Bills passed by the State legislature.
Regarding the President’s authority under Article 201, the Court ruled that her decision-making is subject to judicial scrutiny and must occur within three months. If there is any delay beyond this period, the reasons must be documented and communicated to the relevant State.Following this ruling, the President submitted fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, expressing concerns about the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201.
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