Today, on 9th September, on Day 9 of the Presidential Reference Row on Assent to Bills, the Supreme Court was told that the Governor has no veto over bills passed by the State Legislature. This was submitted before the Court by Karnataka’s Subramanium and Kerala’s KKV, clarifying the Governor’s powers.
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 Kerala government argued before the Supreme Court that a State’s Council of Ministers can compel the Governor to give assent to a bill, even if the Governor chooses to withhold it after discussions.
Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, representing the Kerala government, stated that if discussions between the government and the Governor do not reach a consensus and the Governor still intends to withhold assent, the Council of Ministers can advise the Governor under Article 163 to grant assent.
He added,
“In which case, the Governor would have no choice but to grant assent under Article 163. In my view, it may not be appropriate for the Council of Ministers to utilize Article 163 the moment the bills are passed and compel the Governor to immediately grant assent in all cases, even without discussion. To compel the Governor… is not consistent with the high position held by the Governor as head of the State,”
Venugopal emphasized that withholding assent should not occur under any circumstances.
However, if the Governor continues to refuse assent, he stated,
“If the Bill is killed, reasons have to be given. Reasons will make it open for judicial review. The Governor is not there to subvert the functioning of the legislatures. On the other hand, he is very much part of the legislature. He will ensure that bills are assented to in the interest of the State. He has no power to withhold assent. After discussing bills with ministers, Article 163 will be used to ask the Governor to grant assent.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing Karnataka, supported this view, asserting that the Governor lacks a veto over bills passed by the State legislature.
He contended that the questions raised by the President have already been addressed in earlier Supreme Court rulings and dismissed the Union government’s claim that the Governor possesses legislative power under Article 200.
He argued that any interpretation granting the Governor an unlimited veto power contradicts the existence of elected State legislatures.
He stated,
“A Governor is only entitled to withhold assent on ministerial advice for the purpose of returning a Bill to the Houses for reconsideration. And if the Bill is passed again by the Houses, the Governor must then assent,”
Subramanium also criticized Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s written submissions regarding the President’s discretionary powers, labeling them as contradictory.
He added,
“It is respectfully submitted that the submissions advanced on behalf of the Union, in respect of the powers of the President, do not accurately reflect the law as laid down by this Court in Shamsher Singh. They are also contrary to the express words of Article 74(1) of the Constitution. The President of India, who is a constitutional or formal head of the Union, must perform his functions on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers,”
He further argued that it would be incorrect to assume that a judgment can be overruled through a presidential reference, stating that such actions should follow the normal adjudicatory process.
Gopal Subramanium stated,
“Any interpretation that confers upon the Governor an unqualified power of veto is antithetical to the existence of elected State legislatures.”
Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, representing the State of Kerala, contended that a Governor should act on a bill without delay.
He argued,
“The reason I say it should be forthwith is because even money Bills, which are the most urgent, necessarily have to be dealt with responsibly. Even if the phrase ‘as soon as possible’ was not there, along with the other provisions, the Governor would necessarily have to deal with money bills immediately. Non-assent in human terms would mean dependence of the State. There is no question of his having any right to withhold assent to a money bill. The Constitution itself makes that clear,”
Venugopal acknowledged that while the Governor does have the ability to withhold assent to a bill, the Council of Ministers can advise him to grant it.
He explained,
“In my opinion, there are five choices. One, to reserve the Bills for consideration of the President, which is covered by express provisions of the Constitution… Second, to treat it as a money Bill which stands on a separate footing. Third is to grant assent. Fourth is to refer the bill with a message to the Legislature. And fifth is to withhold assent,”
When Chief Justice Gavai inquired whether Venugopal supported the Solicitor General’s argument regarding the Governor’s power to withhold assent, Venugopal replied,
“To an extent, yes, because the Governor has to play a collaborative role in granting assent.”
He further pointed out that out of 28 States and 3 Union Territories with legislatures, 23 States have not approached the Court regarding the issue of bills.
He stated,
“Because so far as Governors are concerned, they are collaborative. There is an intimate relationship between the Governor and legislature. He is intimately part of the legislature in an actual sense. So far as he is concerned, how on earth can one treat the Governor as an adversary? He is not an adversary. He has to go along with every single bill,”
In this context, he referred to a practice during the tenure of former Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan, where the Governor would discuss the bill with the relevant minister before making a decision. Venugopal asserted that the Constitution would endorse such a practice.
He remarked,
“This is the only way in which the bills relating to grant or withholding of assent or sending it back with a message can be done… Governor would not sit in an ivory tower, get a bill and then study it by himself or retain it for a number of months to study it and then decide whether to grant or refuse,”
Venugopal also suggested that the State could inform the Governor when a bill needs to be sent to the President for assent.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the State of Punjab, argued that the Governor lacks discretion under Article 200.
Datar stated,
“He has only three options. His discretion is limited to choosing one of the three options,”
He warned that accepting the notion that the Governor can indefinitely withhold assent creates a constitutional paradox.
He explained,
“The argument is that the Governor can withhold assent indefinitely. In my respectful submission, that cannot be correct. Assent must be read with the proviso. Withholding assent is only for the time taken to prepare a message to send back to the legislature,”
Regarding the timeframe for the Governor to act on a bill, Datar commented,
“They could be a simple amendment Bill which doesn’t require much time. It can be approved the very next day itself, or the same day. On the other hand, there could be a complex Bill which may involve matters falling under the Union List, or which may involve matters of parliamentary law already in place. There the Governor may need some more time. So ‘as soon as possible’ doesn’t mean an infinite amount of time. It depends on the context of the Bill.”
Datar further asserted that no Governor in the country should serve as a constitutional filter to deny assent to a bill or to determine the validity of proposed legislation.
He remarked,
“It is a bill. I can pass a good law or bad law. I will take that risk,”
He also suggested that if a timeline is deemed necessary, the courts could impose one, citing examples.
He noted,
“The effectiveness of a law is certainty and predictability. The Supreme Court has imposed timelines from time to time in statutory provisions,”
However, Justice Narasimha responded that constitutional provisions are distinct.
The judge stated,
“We are dragging the Court into a situation where the legislative process is getting monitored and controlled through the processes of court,”
Justice Narasimha remarked,
“We are not saying that there is no requirement of expediency in legislative processes. But to fix a time limit is a risk that Court takes?”
In reply, Datar noted that if “as soon as possible” were absent from Article 200, the circumstances would indeed differ.
He explained,
“Ultimately the statute says something, the Court interprets that statute. Read together, it becomes law,”
At this point, Justice Nath interjected,
“Even if ‘as soon as possible’ was not there, still the Governor would be expected to act in a reasonable time.”
Justice Vikram Nath further inquired whether the Governor would be expected to act within 24 hours in an emergency. Datar responded,
“Maybe. If there is a disaster. It is a money bill. The Governor has to respect that mandate of the people. Your lordships can impose a timeline. If your lordships can go so far as to bring substantial due process in [Article] 21, then why not this…”
Justice PS Narasimha remarked,
“We are dragging the Court into a situation where the legislative process is getting monitored and controlled through the processes of court,”
Datar also contended that the jurisdiction under Article 143 is solely to address a question of fact or law referred to the Court by the President.
He asserted,
“It is not to evaluate the correctness of an earlier judgment… A presidential reference in this case is essentially testing the correctness of a view taken by a bench. Indirectly, you’re making an intra-court appeal when there is none. You can’t do it with 143,”
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