Today, On 26th August, CJI B.R. Gavai raised a sharp question in the Supreme Court during the hearing on Governors’ powers, asking if a bill passed in 2020 can still be kept pending in 2025, stressing that indefinite delay undermines democracy.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is on Monday (August 26) 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.
In that judgment, the Court had mandated timelines for the assent process by the President and Governors to prevent the misuse of “pocket veto.”
At the start of the hearing, Chief Justice Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,
“so today is the last day of your side ?”
To this, SG Mehta replied,
“Yes Milord.”
The bench, which also included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, is reviewing a presidential reference regarding the court’s authority to set deadlines for Governors and the President to act on state assembly bills.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul presented his arguments before the Constitution Bench, explaining the constitutional process for bills requiring presidential assent.
He pointed out that the proviso in this scheme is more of a consultative step, and it cannot be interpreted to mean that the President is bound to withhold assent.
He stressed that the meaning of constitutional phrases must be understood in their correct legal and dictionary sense, and not extended to imply that every time assent is withheld, the bill must automatically be returned to the Assembly.
According to him, the phrase “unless” in constitutional provisions indicates that the bill would lapse unless it is assented to, and it cannot be twisted to mean otherwise.
Kaul also referred to Article 167 of the Constitution, highlighting how the duties of constitutional authorities must always be tested against constitutional principles. He explained that judicial review is an important safeguard, but it is subject to limits.
According to him, while judicial review exists in all constitutional matters, there are certain categories of actions where no clear or manageable legal standards exist, making those actions non-justiciable before courts.
The Chief Justice then raised an important concern about whether the Governor can continue to withhold assent even when the State cabinet reiterates a bill.
CJI B.R. Gavai asked,
“Even if the second time the council of ministers reiterate a bill, then also the governor can withhold?”
Responding to this issue, Kaul clarified that in such a situation the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold. He must either give assent or refer the bill to the President, as any other approach would be against the law.
Kaul added that the Constitution does not specifically define all the circumstances where a Governor can refuse assent. He underlined that judicial review is always available in principle, but some decisions may still fall outside the scope of judicial determination.
The Bench then turned its attention to the core issue of indefinite delays by Governors.
The Chief Justice asked a sharp question to highlight the problem,
“When the house has passed a bill..can the governor sit on it indefinitely? Suppose a bill is passed in 2020.. will the court be powerless if there is no consent even in 2025?”
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?”
READ- Questions referred by the President under Article 143 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
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
