Today, on 2nd September, in the Presidential Reference Row, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, said that the legislature’s sovereign acts cannot be implemented by the Executive. The Governor cannot withhold bills, and at no stage does the Executive possess legislative authority.
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, appearing for West Bengal, emphasized that the Executive, including the Governor, has no legislative power and cannot withhold bills passed by the legislature.
Mr. Sibal told the Bench,
“The sovereign act of the legislature cannot be implemented by the Executive with the Governor choosing to withhold the Bill.”
He stressed that at no stage does the Executive possess legislative authority.
He explained that the Governor can either send the bill back, reconsider it, or forward it to the President, but these powers are exercised not in the Governor’s personal capacity but on the aid and advice of the Union Government.
Sibal said,
“The President is not acting in his personal capacity but in the capacity of the Government of India,
Justice PS Narasimha asked whether the Governor applies a deliberative or consultative methodology in taking such decisions.
Mr. Sibal replied,
“He is not taking any personal decisions. Overriding the will of the legislature is anathema to the Constitution. There is no principle of constitutional law that allows a breakdown of constitutional machinery.”
Senior Advocate Sibal referred to historical and judicial precedents, noting that the Constitution is “rooted in history but aligned with the future.”
He added,
“It is you five (the Bench) who will decide the future of this country in relation to the powers of the Governor.”
Sibal further clarified that Article 361 ensures immunity from personal attack, and the Governor is always answerable through the Government, not personally.
He reiterated,
“There is no discretion for the Governor,”
He also distinguished the powers under Article 200 and 201, highlighting that discretion is a concept alien to Article 200.
He said
“If the concept of discretion is exercised, then its contours are not defined, and it could lead to constitutional absurdity,”
The Supreme Court bench, including Chief Justice of India and Justices Nath and Narasimha, probed the timelines and consequences of bills under Articles 200 and 201.
Mr. Sibal stressed that delays in legislative action should not be allowed to undermine the constitutional process.
Sibal remarked,
“Executive at no stage has any legislative power.”
The hearing is scheduled to continue tomorrow.
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