Today, On 3rd September, In the Presidential Reference hearing, The Supreme Court said that a Governor cannot just act like a postman or behave like a super legislature while examining the constitutional limits of a Governor’s powers under Article 200.
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.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal continued his submissions before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India Justice Gavai in the case concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 of the Constitution.
Sibal posed a pointed question,
“Since independence, have your lordships ever heard the president withholding the bill? What’s the reason for that?”
Chief Justice Gavai responded,
“It’s the will of the people.”
Sibal agreed, stressing urgency,
“Yes. Because it’s the will of the people. There’s an element of urgency, it has to be implemented immediately.”
He then explained that once a Bill becomes law, the presumption of constitutionality applies.
“The legislation is not concerned with the constitutionality of the bill. That’s the domain of your lordships… At the stage of introducing and passing bills we don’t test the constitutionality of the bill.”
When the CJI asked if a Governor could reserve a Bill if he found it repugnant to central legislation, Sibal maintained,
“There is a presumption of constitutionality and it is a rare case.”
Justice Narasimha suggested,
“Take citizenship..”
But Sibal countered,
“This is an example which has never happened in history of republic of India.”
Justice Surya Kant remarked,
“So you say application of mind will be there by the governor. You can argue what the contour is.. so he can’t be a postman nor a super legislative body.”
Sibal followed by asserting the importance of state legislatures,
“Sovereignty of the state legislature is as important as the sovereignty of the parliament. Should governor be allowed to delay this.. that’s the question. The court has to ensure that there is no area of discord. So the keyword here was as soon as possible. There is an element of immediacy.. it is will of the people.”
He warned of constitutional breakdown if Governors repeatedly withhold assent,
“Suppose the governor sends it back… The assembly passes it again, and he again withholds it. Then what will be done? Let us not interpret the Constitution to make it unworkable… Governor cannot be given so much power.”
He clarified,
“All confabulations with the governor may happen beforehand, and once the bill is sent, it must be assented to. Yes there may be extraordinary circumstances.. but it has to be expedient and president acts on advice of council of ministers. So it’s the govt taking the decision.”
Sibal warned,
“Will of the people cannot be subject to executive whims and fancy.”
Justice Kant said,
“So, proviso to Article 254(2) is a settled filter, you say.”
Sibal agreed,
“Yes. This decision has to be taken forthwith. That is the meaning of word as soon as possible.”
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