Today, On 21st August, In the Presidential Reference hearing SG Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that while no constitutional timelines are fixed for courts to deliver judgments, the same principle must apply to Governors and the President while deciding assent to Bills.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Today heard the Presidential Reference concerning the powers of Governors in granting assent to State bills.
The Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, engaged in a detailed exchange with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on whether courts can prescribe timelines for Governors to act on bills.
The bench, 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.
The hearing began with Solicitor General Mehta stressing that elected representatives cannot take voters for granted and that accountability is central to governance.
Responding to this, Chief Justice Gavai reminded that while accountability is vital, there are limits to judicial intervention, cautioning that,
“We have always said judicial activism cannot become judicial terrorism.”
During the hearing on the issue of Governor’s powers in granting assent to state bills, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the judiciary cannot prescribe a fixed time limit for constitutional functionaries like Governors or the President.
Tushar Mehta argued,
“There are no timelines fixed for courts to decide cases, Then Why For Governors And President?”
Mehta further said,
“This court has the power of judicial review but the degree of justiciability will vary. One organ cannot arrogate the function of another.”
He stressed that if the Constitution makers had wanted to impose time restrictions, they would have expressly done so.
He explained that if a Governor holds back bills, there are political solutions available.
Mehta submitted,
“There are delegations to the Prime Minister, to the President and the impasse is solved. But that does not confer jurisdiction to lay down a timeline. Such issues are arising in many states. Statesmanship, political maturity is at play,”
The Bench, however, expressed concern over the consequences of inaction.
Chief Justice BR Gavai observed,
“If there is a wrong, there has to be a solution. This court is an organ of the Constitution. If a constitutional functionary does not discharge functions without valid reasons, should the court say we are powerless and our hands are tied?”
Justice PS Narasimha also questioned the lack of process, remarking,
“We cannot specify a time limit, but a process needs to be worked out… how can it be that the bill is not acted upon… how long can that be a dead end?”
The Solicitor General further pointed out that wherever the framers of the Constitution considered it necessary and expedient to set a time frame, they specifically included such limits in the text of the Constitution itself.
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.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | SPL. REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A