Today, on 10th September, in the Presidential Reference Row, Advocate Avani Bansal tells the Supreme Court that citizens cannot be left helpless due to delays in gubernatorial decisions. Timely action is essential to prevent arbitrary use of powers by Governors and preserve constitutional governance.
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.
A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, was addressing a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution.
Representing DMK, Wilson stated, “Tamil Nadu has been fighting in the Supreme Court on this issue for a long time,” referring to delays caused by gubernatorial actions.
CJI reminded him that this is a Reference, and personal grievances cannot influence the discussion; the focus must remain on legal questions.
Advocate P. Wilson noted the importance of judicial review in governance.
He said,
“A Bill is nothing but an expression of political will. A governor cannot act like a constitutional court and adjudicate on its constitutionality. Without timelines for assent, States are left wandering in courts,”
Wilson referred to the Rojer Mathew v/s South Indian Bank Ltd. judgment, stressing that presidential assent alone does not validate a law; the Supreme Court must have space for enforcement and protection of constitutional principles.
He added,
“Immunity available to the Governor does not take away the court’s power to examine the validity of his actions.”
Sankaranarayanan explained,
“In a Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court gives a report on questions raised by the President. The opinion of a Presidential Reference Bench is like the opinion of a law officer to the government.”
Sankaranarayanan, representing intervenors, outlined key points of Article 143 (advisory jurisdiction):
- Supreme Court offers only an “Opinion” in a “Report.”
- No dispute is adjudicated; the process is not adversarial.
- Reports have no more effect than a law officer’s opinion.
- Articles 141, 142, 144 do not apply to Article 143 Reports.
- Reports defer to existing court judgments.
- Contempt cannot arise from a Report; the President may defer or act despite it.
- Reports are persuasive but not binding precedent.
- Opinions in Reports can be overruled in judgments.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan highlighted the absence of judicial review for actions of high constitutional authorities.
He warned of potential discordant situations, including:
- Governors refusing to swear in a Chief Minister,
- Presidents withholding Warrants of Appointment for judges,
- Governors not presenting the annual financial statement,
- UPSC failing to conduct exams,
- Election Commission not conducting elections on time.
Bansal also noted that courts have previously intervened to address constitutional silence on timelines. She explained that the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 requires a higher threshold of timely action than the vague “reasonable period of time.”
She argued,
“The phrase ‘as soon as possible’ cannot be reduced to an amorphous, malleable ‘reasonable period of time’ by the court,”
Bansal emphasized the need for time-bound decision-making. She referred to the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendation for timely gubernatorial actions to protect cooperative federalism.
She added,
“If a Bill, for example, to bring healthcare to a far-flung place, is delayed for three to four years, the citizen has nowhere to go. This would become an arbitrary act by the Governor. The citizen cannot become a sitting duck,”
Advocate Avani Bansal highlighted the potential for constitutional authorities, including Governors and Presidents, to act arbitrarily.
She said,
“In the constitutional framework, is there any scope/space for such arbitrary action – by Governors and Presidents? The simple answer is no. But as evident from previous cases, it is a real possibility that constitutional functionaries arbitrarily abuse their powers. Without specified timelines, if Governors and Presidents act arbitrarily, it can create a constitutional impasse and stall the ‘will of the people.’”
Senior advocate Siddarth Luthra, representing Andhra Pradesh, stated that the State supports the Union government on all issues except one: the submission that States cannot file writ petitions under Article 32 on any matter.
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
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
