Today, on 3rd September, On Day 8 of the Presidential Reference hearing, Karnataka, West Bengal, and Himachal Pradesh told the Supreme Court, “Union Government was attempting to abrogate the core of Constitution,” highlighting concerns over federal powers and constitutional balance.
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 governments of Karnataka, West Bengal, and Himachal Pradesh informed the Supreme Court that the “Union government was attempting to abrogate the fulcrum of Constitution” by challenging the Court’s ruling from April 11, which established deadlines for the President and Governor to act on Bills passed by State legislatures.
The States, governed by Congress and Trinamool Congress, also urged the Supreme Court to avoid falling “into the trap” of allowing the Governor to obstruct the Constitution’s functioning.
They emphasized that States should not be regarded as mere municipalities.
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing Karnataka, argued that the Union government’s assertions indirectly seek to undermine the core principles of the Constitution, which include the cabinet-form of government and accountability to the legislature.
He further stated,
“The democratic form of government through cabinet has been held to be part of the basic structure of Constitution.”
He also noted that,
“Theory of implied limitation on powers of President and Governor was recognized.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, emphasized that the Court should avoid allowing the Governor to become a barrier to the Constitution’s functioning.
He remarked,
“Constitution is a living document. It owes genesis to history but owes it allegiance to the future and you [judges] are the future because you interpret it. Let us not fall into a trap where Governor becomes an impediment in the functioning of the Constitution. Therefore you will have to say something…. Don’t give a timeline but you still have to say that there is no way he can withhold if it is passed again.”
Sibal further argued that the Governor does not possess the authority to assess the constitutionality of a bill. When the Court inquired if the Governor could withhold assent if the bill contradicts central legislation, Sibal indicated that such a situation would be extremely rare.
Sibal stated,
“A legislation can be challenged in a court of law by citizens or by somebody else. It’s in the rarest and rare case that a Governor says I cannot pass,”
He added,
“Bills and legislations are not introduced like this. Deliberations take place… like drug control, etc. Legislations are not passed at ipse dixit of ministers.”
In response, Justice Kant remarked,
“Therefore, Mr Sibal, even according to you, the Governor would have to apply his mind at least to find out whether the proposed bill is within the constitutional framework… ‘shall declare’ presupposes application of mind by Governor. You can argue what would be contours of that, the other side can also argue what it should it be. Within that framework, neither he can be treated as postman nor he can be a super legislative power.”
Kapil Sibal argued that any issues the Governor may have should be addressed prior to the bill’s submission, emphasizing that once the bill is sent, the Governor must provide assent.
He stated,
“All confabulations with the Governor may happen beforehand and once the bill is sent, it must be assented to. There may be extraordinary situations to refer it to the President, but as soon as possible and forthwith must apply to the Governor and the President,”
Sibal urged the Court to prevent the Executive from overriding the will of the people, noting that the Governor is also part of the Executive.
He added,
“The will of the people cannot be subject to executive whims and fancies,”
In his arguments, Sibal disagreed with the assertion that the timelines set by the court for the Governor and President would constitute an amendment to the Constitution.
He said,
“Of course not. You are ensuring the Article (of the Constitution) functions, that constitutional machinery functions, not that you are amending it,”
Sibal expressed concern that granting the Governor a ‘personal choice’ regarding assent would render him unaccountable.
The senior counsel argued,
“If you allow the Governor a personal power to take a decision, neither the Government of India nor the State Government is involved. How will Article 361 apply when it is the decision of the Governor that I will not give you assent or that I am keeping the bill pending? The Government of India cannot defend him. The State Government is at odds with him. Then how will the writ lie? If you give that power to the Governor, then he is answerable. Then Article 361 will not stand in the way. You can’t have it both ways. You take recourse to Article 361 saying he is not answerable, and you give him power under Article 200 and say the Governor will not file an affidavit and the Court can’t issue a process. Then you are making the Constitution unworkable,”
Sibal also commented on the nature of the current reference,
“No reference in the past is similar to this one… I would request your lordships to be careful when deciding a matter of this nature, dealing with a hypothetical situation in the absence of facts. What is being argued is that the Governor has immunity; he can withhold assent. That your lordships must answer but there are several peripheral issues which are not before you.”
He added that the Court should refrain from addressing many of the questions posed in the reference and exercise its discretion wisely.
He stated,
“All these questions should not be answered. The only parameter that needs your lordships’ careful consideration is Article 200 of the Constitution in the context of the power of the Governor. It is not about maintainability; it is your lordships’ discretion in the exercise,”
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing the State of Karnataka, argued that endowing the Governor or President with any form of discretion would undermine the principle of a cabinet-style government, which is collectively accountable to the legislature.
He emphasized that the Governor lacks any legislative authority.
Subramanium stated,
“He enjoys no legislative power. So the question of high constitutional functionary enjoying plenitude of discretion is completely anathema to the Constitution,”
Furthermore, he contended that both the President and the Governor do not possess any discretion regarding the executive government or legislative acts.
He added,
“The reason why assent is required from President and Governor is because all the executive actions have to be taken in the name of the President and Governor,”
Subramanium asserted that the Union government’s submissions aim to indirectly undermine the core principle of the Constitution, which is the cabinet form of government and its accountability to the legislature.
He also argued that the Governor’s act of reserving a bill for the President is not a matter of discretion but is carried out in accordance with various constitutional provisions. His arguments will continue on Thursday.
During today’s proceedings, Advocate Anand Sharma, representing the State of Himachal Pradesh, stated that courts serve as the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution, which is a cornerstone of the Indian republic.
He remarked that Governors are not viceroys or Governor-Generals, emphasizing that they are obligated to act on the advice of the council of ministers. According to Sharma, neither the President nor the Governor should summon legislative sessions.
Sharma explained,
“Legislature is supreme. Neither the President nor the Governor have any role in law making. Even when they come to address the sessions [of parliament or legislature, they don’t preside, they don’t chair. They only address,”
He further asserted that the Governor’s office should not be used to undermine the will of the people, stressing that states have their own significance within the country and deserve to be respected and protected.
Sharma concluded,
“States can’t be belittled or treated as municipalities,”
Gopal Subramanium will resume his arguments in the Supreme Court on September 9.
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