Today, On 26th August, Presidential Reference Row, Harish Salve told the Supreme Court that courts cannot dictate the Governor’s power under Article 200, stressing it does not impose a time limit and Governors must act with constitutional balance and legislative respect.
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.”
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.
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.
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?”
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, argued that India is not a federal nation but a constitutional construct which only resembles federalism.
He told the Bench,
“Do we look at our Constitution to see who it is created or interpret provisions linked to Union and States with prior notion that it is understood to make some notion on federalism.”
Mr. Salve explained that the framers of the Constitution had created a system in which the Union has the power to refuse a Bill passed by a State assembly. He said that this is sometimes “uncharitably characterised as veto,” but the power does exist unless Article 201 itself is rewritten.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, while making submissions before the Supreme Court Constitution Bench on the issue of Governor’s discretion under Article 200, stressed that there should not be a presumption of inaction against the Governor if assent to a Bill is not given immediately.
He pointed out that,
“It cannot be assumed that in every case where the Governor has not issued the declaration immediately, the Governor is guilty of inactivity.”
Explaining the constitutional framework, he said that Article 200 does not prescribe any specific time limit for the Governor to exercise discretion.
According to him, the reason is that the Governor must take a well-considered decision regarding the future course of action, ensuring that the constitutional balance among different institutions is maintained, while also showing due respect to the wisdom of the State legislature.
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