Today, on 2nd September, On Day 7 of the Presidential Reference hearing, the Supreme Court questioned, “What if the Governor does not follow the timeline?” The Bench examined the consequences of delays in assenting to bills, highlighting executive accountability.
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.
The Court today inquired about the implications if the Governor and the President do not adhere to the timelines established by the Supreme Court.
The Court remarked,
“What would be the consequences if the Governor and the President does not follow the timeline established by the Supreme Court.”
Justice Nath remarked,
“Then…has to amend the Constitution basically to incorporate these timelines in 200, 201,”
The Court also raised the question of whether it can grant deemed assent for bills that the Governor has not acted upon.
Justice Nath asked,
“This Court can just get into the shoes of the Governor and consider all three options he [Governor] has…?”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, continued his arguments, asserting that the authority to kill a bill rests solely with the cabinet and not the Governor.
He added,
“It can’t be a by Governor. Your lordship will have no scheme of Constitution left (if that is allowed),”
Singhvi advocated for judicial review of the Governor’s inaction, claiming that the courts are capable of recognizing areas where they should refrain from intervening.
He argued,
“Courts are smart enough to know which is a no-go area and where they can intervene. These are self-imposed limitations,”
He further contended that if Governors and the President are shielded from judicial review, their powers could be excessively broadened. Singhvi emphasized that a Governor should not be the ultimate authority on a bill.
He stated,
“Governor cannot withhold assent, kill a bill or be a judge in this. He is not the final arbiter or the ‘Super Chief Minister’. Ultimately, alleged unconstitutional bills are passed every day and courts will decide that. Even if a majority introduced it, courts will see it… that is separation of powers,”
He also defended the need for timelines for the Governor and the President. In response, Chief Justice Gavai noted that different factual considerations may arise in various cases and questioned how a uniform timeline could apply to all bills.
Singhvi countered that addressing each case individually would not resolve the issue, pointing out that States should not have to return to Court whenever the Governor declines to grant assent.
Nevertheless, the Court expressed doubt regarding its authority to impose timelines on the Governor, with Justices Nath and Narasimha questioning the consequences if those timelines are not met.
Singhvi contended that the framework of Article 200 is suitable for the implementation of timelines.
He stated,
“There has to be an amendment to the Constitution of course, that’s the ideal thing. In Manipur, Telangana …. the Court had to intervene. My lord recognises that despite no constitutional amendment, this Court can fix timelines. If a bill-by-bill approach is followed in Article 200, then the object of putting a timeline will be defeated,”
He further argued that inaction in the face of these timelines must lead to consequences.
He asserted,
“And that is deemed assent. It could be contempt,”
However, CJI Gavai remarked that setting a timeline for the President’s decision could be “imposing.” He noted that courts frequently receive requests from district courts for more time to complete trials.
He pointed out,
“They say they can’t conclude it. The Governor is to take a decision within a reasonable period,”
Similarly, Justice Nath questioned the reasoning behind the court’s declaration of deemed assent.
The judge inquired,
“Why only deemed assent? This court can just get into the shoes of the Governor and consider all three options he has,”
He added,
“Coming to timelines, if one does not stick to the timeline then deemed assent will be given by the court. So this court will be part of the legislative process?”
Justice Nath emphasized that individual cases could always be reviewed.
He remarked,
“You come here. The court will examine the bill and take a decision,”
In response, Singhvi highlighted that such delays by Governors are often repetitive and lead to these cases arising.
Singhvi argued,
“Your lordships are not on an ivory tower… It takes a minimum of a year (to decide an Article 32 plea). What’s the point then? And in the case of Article 226, it is 3 years. The Governor then has 3 years. Then the Governor becomes a pocket veto, a super Chief Minister, and then timeline has no effect at all,”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, argued that the Centre’s claim suggests that the sovereign acts of the legislature do not need to be enforced.
Sibal contended,
“For the first time in the history of constitutional law in this country, your lordships would hold that the will of the people need not be implemented because the Governor chooses to withhold it. It is a proposition which is unacceptable,”
He emphasized that the executive lacks legislative power at any point and noted that both the President and Governors are required to act based on the advice of the council of ministers.
Sibal stated,
“Your lordships sitting in this Court have to ensure that you interpret the Constitution to ensure that it works and not that it does not work. Not that the Governor says, I will not allow this to go forward. No principle of constitutional law allows a breakdown of constitutional machinery. There is no such principle of constitutional law,”
He further asserted that the Governor cannot reject or withhold a bill or return it. He described overriding the legislature’s will as fundamentally opposed to the Constitution.
Addressing the judges directly, the senior counsel remarked,
“The Constitution is rooted in history but aligned with the future and who decides the future of this country… it is you five… It is you who will decide the future of this country in relation to powers of Governor etc.”
The hearing is scheduled to continue tomorrow.
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
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
