Today, On 21st August, In the Presidential Reference row, the Centre told the Supreme Court that political solutions must be adopted for delayed Bills, stressing that courts cannot impose timelines on Governors or the President, as the Constitution provides none.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court informed by the Central Government that there are political avenues available to address disputes regarding bills that a Governor may withhold.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta explained to Chief Justice BR Gavai and the constitution bench that the Presidential Reference is focused on timelines for bill decisions.
He stated,
“Such solutions are taking place and it is not everywhere that state is advised to rush to the Supreme Court. The Chief Minister goes and requests the Prime Minister…there are delegations which go and say please talk to the Governor and let him take decision one way or another…telephonically they are sorted out.”
The court also learned that joint meetings sometimes occur involving the Prime Minister, Chief Minister, and Governor to resolve deadlocks.
Mehta emphasized that this situation does not grant the court jurisdiction to establish guidelines through a judgment, questioning whether it can interpret the lack of a constitutionally defined time limit even if there is justification.
He noted that these issues have been present across various states for decades, indicating that it is not limited to any specific government.
He added,
“Statesmanship, political maturity is at play…there may be an impasse and some clarification might be required…,”
In a previous session, the Supreme Court had raised concerns about whether a Governor’s withholding of bills could subject the elected government to the Governor’s whims.
In response, Mehta clarified that if a Governor withholds a bill, it effectively dies.
He stated,
“Governor is not just a postman…an individual who is not directly elected is no lesser than an individual who is directly elected.”
The court was also informed that the office of the Governor is not merely a post-retirement refuge for politicians and carries its own significance.
During his arguments, Mehta outlined the process for appointing Governors as envisioned by the Constituent Assembly, noting that the assembly determined that the Centre must play a role in provincial governance, which defines the Governor’s position.
Mehta further explained that President Droupadi Murmu sought the court’s opinion regarding its directive on imposing timelines for bill decisions, due to the genuine operational challenges faced by the President and Governors across the country.
He argued that the reference is not a legal dispute to be resolved but rather a request for authoritative guidance on constitutional matters that have arisen or may arise.
In written submissions, the Centre argued that since Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution do not specify timelines regarding the discretion exercised by Governors and the President concerning bill assent, any judicially mandated timeline would lead to interpretative confusion and functional issues for constitutional officials.
They stated,
“The powers under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, being high plenary constitutional functions, are not to be exercised mechanically but as a solemn constitutional responsibility…Importing timelines would negate their very purpose.”
At the start of the Constitution Bench hearing, the Supreme Court addressed the maintainability of the special reference regarding President Droupadi Murmu’s inquiry into the court’s directive on timelines for the exercise of discretion by the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201.
The five-judge bench, including CJI BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, had recently issued notices to the Union of India and all state governments following a special reference case registered on July 19,
The core question posed by President Murmu is whether timelines and procedural guidelines can be judicially mandated in the absence of constitutionally prescribed parameters.
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
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
