Today, On 26th August, In the ongoing Presidential Reference before the Supreme Court, Puducherry argued that a Governor’s inaction on bills cannot always be seen as unconstitutional delay, stressing before the Constitution Bench that “not taking a decision is also a decision.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is on Monday (August 26) 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.
During the hearing, Chief Justice of India reiterated that the Constitution Bench hearing the Reference is “not sitting in appeal of the April 8 verdict.”
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing in the matter, submitted that the April 8 judgment was based on a petition filed under Article 32 by the Tamil Nadu government.
He argued,
“The conduct of the Governor cannot be the subject of an Article 32 petition.”
He also repeated his submission that once the case was accepted, it should have been referred to a five-judge Bench. The CJI, however, clarified that “that issue is closed” and reminded him to stick only to arguments that had not been already covered by other counsels.
On behalf of the Union Territory of Puducherry, submissions were made in support of the Presidential Reference.
The counsel relied on Article 253, which gives Parliament the power to make laws for the entire country or any part of it in order to implement international treaties, agreements, or decisions taken at global conferences.
Senior Advocate Vinay Navare, appearing for Puducherry, further argued that the President and Governors have the authority to refuse assent to State legislations.
He submitted that,
“President and Governors can say ‘no’ in the case of State legislations.”
He referred to Article 286 and 287, which restrict the powers of States to frame laws only within their own borders. If States attempt to go beyond these limits, then Parliament has the power to step in. He also referred to Article 302, explaining that this provision allows Parliament to impose restrictions by law in order to ensure that the broader public good prevails over absolute freedom in economic matters.
Mr. Navare then addressed the issue of discretion under Article 200, making it clear that reading strict restrictions into the provision would defeat its purpose. He emphasised that the role of the President and Governors is not just symbolic.
According to him, they must have full discretion to say no.
He insisted,
“It is not an empty formality.”
He then highlighted that ,
“Not taking a decision is also a decision”
He also quoted former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao to support his point. According to him, sometimes delaying a decision could help in “defusing a tense situation in a State.”
Mr. Navare concluded his submissions by saying that instead of resorting to delegations before constitutional authorities, political solutions must come from the will of the people.
The matter will resume on August 28, when the opposing sides are scheduled to put forward their arguments before the Supreme Court.
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
