Today, On 28th August, during the presidential reference hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the Supreme Court that the Governor cannot act as a judge and must assent to Bills, stressing that withholding powers cannot mean sleeping over Bills forever without action or decision.
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.
During the Supreme Court hearing on the powers of the Governor in giving assent to Bills, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu strongly argued that giving a broad discretionary power to Governors would disturb the constitutional balance.
Singhvi said,
“The concept of broad discretion will only create chaos. Refers back to constituent assembly debates.”
Justice P.S. Narasimha then raised a question about the situation when the council of ministers insist on assent but the Bill touches constitutional provisions.
He asked,
“When the council of ministers insist on assent.. and the bill is impinging on constitutional provisions. Are you saying there is no such option for him but to grant assent?”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the Supreme Court that the constitutional scheme will not change because the Governor is bound to give assent to a bill.
He explained that if any law is considered bad, it can be challenged before the court and struck down, but the Governor is not the judge in such matters. Singhvi emphasised that the intent of the framers of the Constitution is very clear.
Referring to Valluri, he said that the Governor has four options available to assent, to withhold assent, to return the bill to the assembly, or to refer it to the President on the advice of the Council of Ministers. On the issue of money bills, he argued that the same principle of withholding will also apply.
He clarified that the purpose of Article 207 is completely different and criticised the argument made between withholding and returning as non-existent.
According to him, withholding must ultimately lead to returning, since a bill can only be returned after it is withheld. He said that creating a separate dichotomy on this point is incorrect.
Chief Justice of India then intervened, saying,
“First is to give assent, third is to reserve for the President.”
Responding to the arguments, Singhvi explained that the middle option under the proviso should be read in a manner that does not allow the Governor to indefinitely withhold assent to a bill. He clarified that it cannot mean withholding assent forever and remaining inactive.
Singhvi explained,
“So the middle option gives effect to the proviso, and it gives it a reading that you may or may not give assent and withhold it forever. It does not mean that withhold always and you go to sleep.”
To this, the CJI said,
“Yes, then withhold till eternity, and words as soon as possible will go on till eternity.”
Singhvi questioned how a bill that has already been assented to could be returned, criticising the interpretation being advanced and pointing out that it was creating a false dichotomy.
The CJI responded,
“At times hard facts brings a good law.”
Singhvi argued that in the doctrine of law, purposive interpretation has to be applied, and the focus of the proviso is on withholding assent, which cannot be considered meaningless. He highlighted that it would be contrary to previous Constitution Bench rulings to make bills fall through simply because the Governor withholds assent and the State does not send it back.
Singhvi asked, why the word “may” was being complicated, noting that the text uses “may” and not “shall.” Singhvi clarified that “may” is linked only to a specific part of the proviso and not the first or third options available to the Governor.
He said the Governor has three options, and “may” arises only in the second option, where the bill can be returned to the assembly for reconsideration or sent to the President, but not withheld forever. He stressed that the proviso was framed to ensure that if the legislature sends back the bill again, the Governor is bound to grant assent.
The CJI then observed,
“They are saying legislature can choose not to send the bill ahead and then the bill falls through. But the governor cannot do that …”
Singhvi agreed with this observation. Justice Narasimha remarked that the expression fall through was not the correct term, as the proper meaning would be that the bill lapses.
The hearing has been scheduled to continue next Tuesday.
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