Today, on 10th September, in the Presidential Reference Row, Telangana Government Tells Supreme Court that the governor must follow the aid and advice of the council of ministers in granting prosecution sanction, “except when a minister or the chief minister faces a criminal case.”
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 Niranjan Reddy, representing the State of Telangana, argued before the Supreme Court that reading discretionary powers into Article 200 would not align with Article 163 of the Constitution, which mandates that discretion must be expressly conferred by law.
He clarified that the only instances where the Court has allowed the Governor or President to exercise discretion are situations where the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers may not be available, such as when there is self-interest, inherent bias, the non-existence of a Council of Ministers immediately after elections, or in case of a fractured verdict.
The Congress-led Telangana government stated as a general rule,
“The governor must act according to the aid and advice of the council of ministers when handling the grant of prosecution sanction, except for the instance where a minister or the chief minister is involved in a criminal case.”
Mr. Reddy said,
“The Constitution was drafted at a time when States showed fissiparous tendencies,”
“75 years later, that danger is no longer there. Interpreting a constitutional provision now, to dilute the powers of the states by reading discretionary powers to the governor, is not conducive.”
He added,
“It is highly unlikely that a democratically elected Council of Ministers would give bad advice to the Governor while sending a Bill for approval.”
On the President’s role, Mr. Reddy stated,
“The President cannot simply sit on a bill without ‘declaring’ a decision. This keeps the bill in a limbo. This is constitutionally not envisaged or provided.”
He emphasized that, by convention, the President always issues “a declaration” granting or withholding assent.
Regarding the Governor’s role, he submitted,
“The State Legislature is the final authority in deciding whether a Bill, dealing with a subject coming under the State List, is repugnant to an existing central law. If a State legislature, being a law-making body, is to opine that there is no overlap, an assent cannot be withheld by the President on a different opinion.”
He further argued,
“Equally, the Governor cannot refer it to the President on a differing opinion. The Governor cannot sit, delay and adjudicate on whether a State Bill is repugnant or unconstitutional.”
Highlighting overlapping laws, Mr. Reddy said,
“Many laws overlap into more than one legislative field entry, and the withholding of assent will trammel upon even the efficacy of the undisputed entries pertaining only to State subjects. In the Indian context and constitutional scheme, the Governor and President would not have the authority or jurisdiction to sit in judicial assessment of a State’s legislative decision. That area is exclusively reserved for the judiciary.”
He added,
“If assent granted to an identical law made by a State ruled by the same party at the Centre is refused to another State, it becomes judicially reviewable on grounds of discrimination.”
Advocate Amit Kumar, Advocate General of Meghalaya, supported this view, saying,
“It is wrong to argue that withholding assent is an independent power. If the Governor sits indefinitely on a bill, it will make A. 200 unworkable and superfluous.”
He clarified that the Governor has only one option under Article 200 “to grant assent to a Bill.”
He further explained,
“The Governor only withholds the Bill for time to prepare the message to the State Legislature. Once the Bill is reconsidered and sent back to the Governor, the latter has no option but to grant assent.”
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
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
