The Supreme Court, while hearing the Presidential Reference on Governors’ powers, clarified it will not examine the contentious question of whether States can approach under Article 32 instead of Article 131 in Union–State disputes.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard the Presidential Reference concerning the powers of Governors in granting assent to State bills.
The Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, engaged in a detailed exchange with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on whether courts can prescribe timelines for Governors to act on bills.
The bench, which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, heard Mehta reference various Supreme Court rulings concerning the powers of governors as the hearing entered its third day.
The hearing began with Solicitor General Mehta stressing that elected representatives cannot take voters for granted and that accountability is central to governance.
The apex Court stated that it will not examine the 14th question raised in the Presidential Reference, which concerns whether the Constitution restricts its jurisdiction in Union–State disputes only to suits under Article 131, and whether a State is entitled to approach the Court through a writ petition under Article 32.
Justice Narasimha pointed out that taking an extreme view cannot serve as a reason to argue that the Court should take no view at all.
Solicitor General Mehta argued that the Court should not impose a timeline for Governors and the President to clear bills.
Responding to Justice Narasimha’s query, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the matter could be kept open and need not be answered by the Court.
He explained,
“One question which Justice Narasimha initially said that Articles 32 and 131, yourship may perhaps not like to answer. It can be kept open.”
Emphasising that it was a dispute between two federating units, he pointed out,
“All federal questions are amenable under Article 131. Tomorrow, your lordship may have a writ petition by one State against another State in regards to some other dispute. For that, Article 131 is the constitutional provision that all federal issues amongst federating units States-Centre, State-State will be adjudicated only by this Court, but under Article 131. But whether the Article 32 petition will lie because it lies only for fundamental rights violations.”
Mehta argued that the Court cannot dictate how a constitutional authority should exercise its power. He contended that the actions of the President and Governor regarding bills are non-justiciable, citing precedents that affirm the non-justiciability of assent given to bills.
At this point, Chief Justice Gavai highlighted the issue of the Governor withholding assent indefinitely.
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.
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | SPL. REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A