Today, on 9th September, in the Presidential Reference Row, Supreme Court stressed that every constitutional power carries an inbuilt duty of reasonableness. “To exercise a constitutional power reasonably is inherent, it need not be superimposed,” Justice Narasimha observed during the Governor’s assent hearing.
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.
Sr Adv Arvind Datar representing State of Punjab submitted that the Governor has only three limited options under Article 200 and cannot exercise unfettered discretion.
He explained that the words “as soon as possible” were deliberately used by the Constituent Assembly instead of a fixed timeline like six months or six weeks, as different bills may require different levels of scrutiny. A simple amendment bill could be cleared immediately, while a complex bill involving Union List matters may need more time and consultation with the Advocate General.
According to him, “as soon as possible” cannot mean an indefinite delay. He stressed that withholding assent should be understood only as a temporary pause to allow the Governor to prepare a message or recommendation.
The Chief Justice of India asked,
“Like Article 111, if president sends bill to parliament and the bill is sent back the president has no power but to assent and same follows for governor?”
To this, Datar responded that once a bill is returned and passed again, the Governor must give assent, just like the President. He further submitted that routine references to the President under Article 200 are being misused to cause indefinite delays.
Linking it with Article 213, he argued that while the ordinance-making power depends on the Governor’s satisfaction, in the case of bills, the Governor cannot act as a constitutional filter.
Datar clarified that at the stage of a bill, there is no repugnancy with parliamentary law; repugnancy arises only when the bill becomes law, and at that stage it can be struck down. He explained that the Governor can warn of possible consequences or refer a bill to the President when it may be inconsistent with parliamentary law under List III.
Using Tamil Nadu as an example, he said that if the President assents under Article 254(2), the State law would prevail in that State even if inconsistent with a central law. He emphasised that no Governor can act as a constitutional filter, since the risk of bad law or good law rests with the legislature.
Datar argued that if necessary, courts can impose timelines to ensure constitutional accountability.
Chief Justice Gavai observed,
“In SC ST Act, there was no timeline provided for applications. But the Court said that 5 years time period is to be given.”
Datar pointed out that certainty and predictability are essential for the effectiveness of law, and the Supreme Court has often fixed timelines in statutory provisions.
Justice Narasimha, however, cautioned,
“But constitutional provisions are different….”
Justice Narasimha further remarked,
“We are not saying that there is no requirement of expediency in legislative processes. But to fix a time limit is a risk that is taken by the Courts.”
Datar responded by saying that the Constituent Assembly’s use of the phrase “as soon as possible” meant that some definite timeline was contemplated. He maintained that if an emergency situation arises, the Governor may even be expected to act within 24 hours, as the Governor must respect the people’s mandate. He said that if the Court could expand Article 21 by bringing in “substantial due process” in cases like bank nationalisation, then imposing a timeline under Article 200 would also be consistent with constitutional values.
Justice Vikram Nath commented,
“Even if as soon as possible was not there, still the Governor would be expected to act in a reasonable time.”
When Justice Vikram Nath asked whether in an emergency the Governor should act within 24 hours, Datar replied that it may be so, as urgency requires immediate response.
Chief Justice Gavai noted,
“Maneka Gandhi case also.”
Datar added that in line with such precedents, all Governors should be bound to give assent within three months. If they fail to do so, citizens should be free to approach courts.
He explained that proper implementation of constitutional provisions leads to harmony, while deviation causes dissonance.
Justice Narasimha underlined,
“To exercise a constitutional power reasonably is inherent in the power itself. It need not be superimposed.”
Datar maintained that fixing timelines for Governors would be a way of upholding constitutional trust. He stressed that not taking a decision is also a decision, and if bills are left pending indefinitely, the cabinet system of government fails.
He said that Article 143 cannot be used as a tool to reopen past judgments. He said that its scope is confined to answering questions of law or fact referred by the President. If a judgment is wrong, the correct route is a constitutional amendment under Article 368, not bypassing it through Article 143.
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