Today, On 21st August, Supreme Court said it does not intend to micro-manage the government and will never interfere. CJI Gavai asked if Governors can indefinitely withhold assent to Bills, stressing judicial review cannot be rendered powerless against such inaction.
The Supreme Court heard the Presidential Reference concerning the power of Governors and the President to grant assent to bills and whether courts can step into this constitutional space.
The bench,led by CJI Gavai, which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, heard Mehta reference various Supreme Court rulings concerning the powers of governors as the hearing entered its third day.
During the hearing regarding the Presidential Reference on the powers of Governors under Article 200, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued vigorously that this provision is not subject to judicial scrutiny.
He emphasized that the exercise of high plenary power by constitutional authorities is beyond the reach of judicial review, citing the principle of separation of powers ingrained in the Constitution.
Justice Kant pointed out that while the decision-making process might fall within judicial review, the final decision made by the Governor or the President regarding a Bill would not be reviewable.
The Solicitor General further asserted that decisions related to a Bill could be “polycentric” in nature. He highlighted the presumption of constitutional comity, indicating that India does not operate on a hierarchical basis.
He stated,
“One authority or organ is not higher than the others. One organ cannot be predominant that it disallows other organs from performing their functions.”
He cautioned that courts should refrain from delving into matters deeply rooted in political complexities, as these issues may involve numerous political factors without clear judicial standards.
At this juncture, Chief Justice Gavai said, clarifying that the court does not wish to overstep its boundaries.
He affirmed,
“We do not intend to micro-manage the government. We will never interfere.”
The CJI clarified further that the court cannot dictate how a district should be administered.
But he posed a serious question,
“Suppose, if a particular function is entrusted to the Governor, and for years together he withholds it, will that also be beyond the power of judicial review of this court? When this Court has in the past set aside the very Constitutional Amendment, which had limited the power of judicial review as a violation of the Basic Structure, can we say this court will be powerless in the face of inaction by a Constitutional authority like the Governor?”
He emphasised that the court was not concerned with the reasons behind why a Governor may grant or withhold assent.
He clarified,
“We are not on why the Governor did not grant assent or reasons thereof. Here, we are on the question of a Governor, however high he may be, sitting on Bills passed by a competent legislature.”
Later in the proceedings, Chief Justice Gavai asked what would happen to the democratic set-up if a Governor kept Bills pending for years.
He questioned,
“Then what happens to the democratic set-up of the government, what happens to the will of the two-third of the majority of the legislature of a particular State?”
Responding to this, the Solicitor General countered by asking,
“Can inaction on the part of the judiciary, compel the President to take action in a pending case?”
He argued that not every issue has to be resolved by the court and said,
“It cannot be that every problem has a solution only at the doors of this court, and political and democratic solutions are not solutions.”
The CJI, however, made it clear that this was not a hypothetical debate. He said,
“We are not acting hypothetically, we have had petitions from multiple States.”
Justice Narasimha also raised a question on whether pushing every such issue into the political domain could result in a logjam. The Solicitor General responded that not all States take adversarial steps when Bills are delayed.
He explained,
“They take diplomatic measures.”
He also said the court has not been flooded with petitions over such delays.
The Solicitor General underlined that many issues are better resolved in the political field where representatives remain accountable to the people. But he insisted that Governors were different and remarked,
“Governor is the most vulnerable. Why cannot we trust other Constitutional authorities?”
The CJI, however, reminded him,
“But the Governor is not answerable to the people.”
During thehearing in the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud Gavai observed that the Bench appreciated the Centre’s concerns about imposing a “time-bound programme” for granting assent or deemed assent to Bills.
However, he asked the Centre to consider a situation where a Governor simply sits on Bills for years without acting.
The CJI remarked,
“Then what happens to the democratic set-up of the government, what happens to the will of the two-third of the majority of the legislature of a particular State?”
Responding to this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered with a sharp question,
“Can inaction on the part of the judiciary compel the President to take action in a pending case?”
He emphasised that not every problem should automatically find its solution in the Supreme Court, stressing,
“It cannot be that every problem has a solution only at the doors of this court, and political and democratic solutions are not solutions.”
The CJI responded firmly, pointing out that the matter was not hypothetical.
He said,
“We are not acting hypothetically, we have had petitions from multiple States,”
As the debate continued, Justice Narasimha posed a concern about a potential deadlock. He asked whether there would be a logjam if every problem were pushed entirely into the political sphere.
The Solicitor General reiterated his stand that judicial remedies are not the only path.
He said,
“Every problem does not find a solution in the judiciary,”
But the Chief Justice pressed further, asking,
“If a Governor can withhold a Bill passed by a competent legislature for time immemorial without returning it to the Assembly, won’t the legislature become defunct?”
In response, Mr. Mehta argued that States usually adopt a diplomatic approach rather than confrontational litigation.
He explained,
“Not every State moves SC when a Bill is delayed… They take diplomatic measures.”
He further added that the court was not flooded with litigation on such delays, pointing out that adversarial action was not the norm.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasised that each constitutional organ has its own core functions, saying,
“You protected the separation of powers against the NJAC.”
He ended his submissions with a firm opposition to the idea of fixing timelines for the President and Governor to act on Bills passed by the legislature.
After him, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul began arguments on behalf of Madhya Pradesh.
The Chief Justice agreed with his submission that the presence of more than one option in Article 200 showed that the Governor enjoys discretion, but only within those four options. Mr. Kaul pointed out that the exercise of one choice does not render the other three options meaningless.
The hearing concluded and will continue on Tuesday.
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.
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | SPL. REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
