Today, On 28th August, in the Presidential Reference Row, Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that a Governor cannot act like a super Chief Minister and is not part of the legislation of the State, stressing that his role is only limited to the legislative process.
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 Centre informed the Supreme Court that state governments are not permitted to invoke writ jurisdiction when challenging the actions of the President and governors regarding bills passed by assemblies that allegedly violate fundamental rights.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court, strongly argued that the Governor cannot behave like a Chief Minister or dominate the State Executive and Legislature.
He said,
“Governor is a part of the legislative process, but he is not part of the legislation of the State. He is not a legislator.”
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the Governor does not enjoy any independent discretion in the governance of a State. He said that the Governor’s constitutional role is limited and in line with democracy and federalism, describing it as one of a “friend, philosopher and guide.”
Mr. Singhvi stressed that the Governor may have a role in the legislative process, but even that is subject to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. He argued that the Governor cannot take a dominating role over either the State Executive or the Legislature.
He pointed out that even though Article 168 provides that the legislature of a State would consist of the Governor, still the Constitution does not assign any legislative responsibility to the Governor in the State Assembly or Council.
He firmly stated,
“Governor cannot act like a super Chief Minister.”
Quoting the late Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Mr. Singhvi explained that Indian democracy does not work on the wishes of a “single summit soul [President/Governors of States] whose deification is incompatible with the basics of our political architecture” but depends on the responsibility of Ministries that are answerable to the Legislature, which in turn is accountable to the people.
After reading out this opinion, Mr. Singhvi made a light comment that when it comes to understanding tough words, one has to either use the dictionary or turn to Shashi Tharoor.
Also Read: BREAKING | Governor Does Not Represent The Union of India. He Represents The President: Centre Tells Supreme Court
Mr. Singhvi also dismissed the fears expressed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta about hypothetical constitutional crises.
He remarked,
“Solicitor General, for the Centre, has given doomsday scenarios in which the Governor can exercise discretion. In our 75 years, with all its twists and turns, these scenarios have not happened. Hypothetically, the sky may fall on our heads. Constitutional interpretations cannot be done in the backdrop of doomsday predictions.”
He further clarified that under Article 200, the only discretion available to the Governor is in the second proviso. He quoted it to explain that a Governor can reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President only if, in his opinion, the Bill, once becoming law, would reduce the powers of the High Court in such a way that its constitutional position is threatened.
Mr. Singhvi went on to quote Dr. B.R. Ambedkar while stressing that democracy works best when the Chief Minister and his Council are fully responsible for the governance of the State. He said that the Governor’s role should only be of a facilitator.
He said,
“Governor is only a facilitator, not interfere but a lubricator, and not cause confusion or chaos. It cannot be a case of two swords in the same scabbard,”
He then reminded the court that the Constitution specifically limits the Governor’s discretion to one situation.
Mr. Singhvi said,
“The only area where the Governor is specifically given discretionary power to deny assent and reserve for Presidential consideration is the category of the second proviso involving powers of the High Court,”
He explained that the executive powers of a State are exercised by the Council of Ministers, in the name of the Governor, but the Governor himself has no independent discretion.
He described the Governor’s position as one of a “friend, philosopher and guide,” in line with the principles of democracy and federalism which are part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
On the issue of assent to Bills, Mr. Singhvi made it clear that,
“The Governor has only three options and if he chooses not to assent to the Bill, he may, even without being bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, either return the Bill to the State Assembly once or refer it to the President when the Governor first receives the Bill.”
He rejected any claim of additional powers, saying,
“There is no so-called fourth option of making the Bill fail by withholding of assent simpliciter.”
He added,
“There is also no fifth option of sending the Bill for Presidential assent after withholding assent, returning it to the State Assembly and receiving it back from the State Assembly under Article 200.”
Mr. Singhvi also relied on precedents to argue that Article 163 does not provide the Governor with a general discretionary authority to act against or without the advice of the Council of Ministers.
He submitted that once the Governor’s role is understood as only titular and constitutional, it becomes clear that the Governor’s independent discretion exists only in very rare and specific situations. He emphasised that Supreme Court judgments have consistently held that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Referring to the Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission Report, Mr. Singhvi read out that Dr. Ambedkar himself had said the Governor has no functions which he can exercise by himself.
He added,
“The Governor under the Constitution has no functions which he can discharge by himself; no functions at all. The Governor cannot, in any particular circumstances, overrule the Ministry.”
At one point, Mr. Singhvi clarified that his earlier mention of Mr. Shashi Tharoor was made purely in admiration. The Chief Justice of India humorously suggested that Mr. Singhvi could handle the matter directly on social media.
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