Today, On 3rd September, In the Presidential Reference hearing, Kapil Sibal representing state of West Bengal tells Supreme Court, “Governor blocking bills makes Constitution unworkable.” The state emphasized that such discretionary powers of the Governor undermine the cabinet form of government and the principles of collective responsibility enshrined in the Constitution.
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.
The Supreme Court emphasized that its ruling on the Presidential reference regarding the powers of Governors over bills passed by State legislatures would be impartial, unaffected by the political party currently or previously in power.
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, appearing for West Bengal in the Supreme Court hearing on the role of Governors in giving assent to Bills, strongly argued that the Constitution does not allow Governors to block legislation indefinitely. He also said that Governors must act according to the Constitution and not create conflict with the elected government.
The West Bengal government informed the Supreme Court that the persistent refusal of a Governor to assent to bills could make the Constitution unworkable.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state, argued before the Constitution Bench that if a Governor continues to withhold assent even after a bill is re-approved by the assembly, it could lead to the collapse of the constitutional framework. He urged the court to avoid interpreting the Constitution in a manner that undermines its functionality.
Sibal emphasized that the Constitution is a living document, historically grounded yet oriented towards the future, and that the Court’s role is to ensure its ongoing relevance. He contended that if no timelines are established, it should at least be stated that once a bill is repassed by the assembly, assent should not be denied again.
Drawing a parallel, he noted that just as a household cannot function without marital harmony, legislative bodies and institutions cannot operate effectively in a state of discord, and the Court must ensure that no such discord exists between the legislature and the Governor.
West Bengal began its arguments on the previous day, with Sibal telling the five-judge bench that through this Presidential Reference, the Court would determine the future of the country concerning the powers of Governors.
He stated,
“The Constitution is rooted in history but aligned with the future, and you five will decide the future of this country in relation to the powers of the Governor.”
The state of Tamil Nadu also addressed the bench, asserting that a Governor is not a final arbiter or a “super chief minister.”
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, contended that a Governor cannot withhold assent to effectively kill a bill. He pointed out that even if unconstitutional bills are passed regularly, it is the courts that will adjudicate their validity, a principle that aligns with the doctrine of separation of powers.
The central government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, previously argued that issues closely tied to high policy or political discretion ought to be regarded as non-justiciable. An additional note submitted by the Union emphasized that judicial review should be differentiated from justiciability, as some matters require policy decisions that fall outside judicial standards.
The Court was also informed that the President of India sought clarification on whether states could file writ petitions under Article 32 against Governors or the President regarding pending bills, considering that Article 361 grants them immunity from being answerable to any court for the exercise of their powers and duties.
Earlier, the Supreme Court heard that the President requested the Court’s guidance on the aspect of states filing writ petitions under Article 32 concerning the delay of bills before the Governor or the President, and the protection provided under Article 361.
The Maharashtra government also informed the Supreme Court that the court cannot confer assent to a bill. Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing Maharashtra, stated that assent to legislation must come from either the Governors or the President, adding that they cannot be held accountable in a court for actions taken in the exercise of their powers.
Earlier, On August 19, the Supreme Court commenced hearings on the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu. During one session, the Supreme Court remarked that while judicial activism must continue, it should not devolve into judicial terrorism or adventurism.
CJI BR Gavai noted,
“I have always deprecated judicial overreach… I have always said judicial activism must remain, but it should not turn into judicial terrorism.”
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