The Union of India told the Supreme Court that Governors and the President enjoy a “high prerogative” in deciding on Bills and courts cannot set deadlines. A Constitution Bench will hear the Presidential reference from August 19.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Union of India has told the Supreme Court that the role of Governors and the President in giving assent to Bills is a “high prerogative” function and courts cannot set strict deadlines for them.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the country’s second senior-most law officer, submitted a written note saying the Constitution itself deliberately keeps Articles 200 and 201 without any time limits. According to him, if the Court fixes timelines, it would mean “rewriting the Constitution.”
The Centre also explained that Governors are not outsiders in a State. Instead, they act as the link between the Union and the States and represent the will of the whole nation.
This submission has come in the Presidential reference case.
The case arose after the Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling, which set binding timeframes for Governors to act on Bills and even fixed an outer limit for the President to decide on reserved Bills.
That ruling created doubts over whether the judiciary had entered into the domain of legislative assent.
Following this, President Droupadi Murmu used Article 143(1) to formally ask the Supreme Court whether such timelines can be judicially enforced and whether Article 142 can be used to justify them.
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, will begin hearings on the matter from August 19, Tuesday.
The Union’s detailed written submissions raised ten key points
- The Centre first stated that the Constitution is supreme and no organ, including the judiciary, can dominate the others.
“Each organ is coordinate and coequal within the field that the Constitution assigns to it. It is constitutional supremacy that is the governing principle.”
- The note further added that Governors are not agents or outsiders but carry the larger voice of the Union into every State.
“Governors are not just emissaries of the Centre, rather representatives of the entire nation in each and every federating unit.”
- On the unique character of assent, the Centre stressed that this power cannot be tested in court.
“The gubernatorial assent is a high prerogative, plenary, non-justiciable power which is sui generis (unique) in nature.”
- It also argued that since the Constitution-makers consciously left Articles 200 and 201 without time limits, courts cannot add what the text does not provide.
“Since the text of Article 200 or 201, does not provide a specific time limit, no form of judicial review or judicial interpretation can impose the same.”
- The Centre then criticised the 2024 Punjab ruling that directed Governors to return Bills quickly, calling it legally incorrect.
“It ignores the textual difference between ‘withhold’ and ‘return’ and is therefore, per incuriam and not a good law.”
- Regarding the Court’s powers under Article 142, the Centre warned against using it to go against constitutional design.
“Article 142 is not a supervening judicial power which can override the constitutional provisions or run contrary to them.”
- It also argued that Governors may use discretion under Article 200 and are not always bound by ministerial advice.
“Accordingly, the Governor is not precluded from exercising discretion under Article 200 even in the absence of aid and advice to that effect.”
- The Centre said commission reports like Sarkaria or Punchhi cannot change constitutional meaning.
“The recommendation cannot override existing constitutional text.”
- Further, it reminded that Governors have immunity for their actions under the Constitution.
“Article 361 grants complete personal immunity to the Governor from being answerable to any court for acts done or purported to be done in the exercise of official powers.”
- Finally, it stated that Bills waiting for assent cannot be questioned in court, and judicial review applies only after a law is made.
“The Constitution clearly provides that law-making is the sole province of the Legislatures and that the constitutional courts cannot judicially review any pending Bill.”
With these arguments, the Union has firmly told the Court that setting judicial timelines for Governors and the President would interfere with the very design of the Constitution.
CASE TITLE:
Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India
SPL.REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A
Questions referred by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution:
Judgement | State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu:
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
