Today, On 21st August, in the Presidential Reference Row, Centre tells Supreme Court that not every issue must be solved by judiciary, stressing such matters should instead be resolved politically through coordination between Chief Minister, Prime Minister, or the President.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard the Presidential Reference concerning the power of Governors and the President to grant assent to bills and whether courts can step into this constitutional space.
The bench,led by CJI Gavai, 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 government stated on Thursday afternoon, during the fourth day of the presidential reference hearing, that not every issue requires resolution by the Supreme Court. It suggested that some matters should be resolved through discussions between a Chief Minister and the Prime Minister or President.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, argued that if certain governors are delaying bills, a political resolution should take precedence over a judicial one.
His comments came in response to the court’s inquiry about the options available to state governments when a governor holds up a bill for an extended period.
Mr. Mehta explained,
“Suppose a particular governor is sitting on bills… there are political solutions. And such solutions are taking place, but it is not everywhere. It is not everywhere the state government rushes to the Supreme Court. The Chief Minister goes and requests the Prime Minister… meets the President.”
He added that delegations often approach to say,
“These bills are pending, please talk to the Governor and let him take a decision, one way or the other.”
He emphasized that these issues can often be resolved through simple communication.
He contended that this situation does not grant the courts the authority to impose a timeline.
He said,
“In the absence of a timeline in the Constitution, can it be laid down by the court even if there is justification?”
These remarks were made as the court advises President Droupadi Murmu regarding its April ruling, which established a deadline for the President and Governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures.
In the past, non-BJP ruled states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab have accused their governors, appointed by the federal government, of intentionally delaying or withholding approval for bills passed by the state legislatures.
In a significant ruling earlier this year, the Supreme Court deemed the actions of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, in relation to the ruling DMK, as “arbitrary” and “illegal.”
The court asserted that bills returned to the state legislature and passed a second time must be approved by either the Governor or the President within 30 days.
This ruling has been challenged by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution, which allows her to seek the court’s opinion on any significant legal question.
The court, On Tuesday, reiterated its advisory role, with the Chief Justice stating that the court would not review the Tamil Nadu case or overturn the April judgment at this time.
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