During the Presidential Reference on Governor and President’s powers, Abhishek Manu Singhvi compared Justice Krishna Iyer’s lyrical English to Shashi Tharoor’s dictionary-heavy style. The Chief Justice of India remarked that reactions on this comparison cannot be stopped.
New Delhi: Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, during his arguments regarding the extent of a governor’s powers in approving bills, quoted a passage from one of Justice Krishna Iyer’s judgments.
He compared Justice Iyer’s eloquent command of English with that of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, noting that both share roots in Kerala.
Singhvi remarked that while Justice Iyer’s English was lyrical and easily comprehensible, understanding Tharoor’s language often necessitates a dictionary, a skill Tharoor employs to perplex many during challenging questions.
In a lighthearted moment, Chief Justice B. R. Gavai mentioned that a judge from the Kerala High Court is trying to emulate Justice Iyer’s style these days.
After the lunch break, Singhvi clarified,
“I mentioned Tharoor in admiration and not in derogation.”
The Chief Justice, in a humorous tone, remarked,
“Neither can we adjudicate that nor can we stop what will be said (about Singhvi’s remarks) on social media.”
The bench, led by Chief Justice Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narsimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, concentrated on issues surrounding gubernatorial discretion.
They observed that the Constituent Assembly had changed the original six-week timeline for a governor to act on a bill to the phrase “as soon as possible.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, contended that a state government cannot invoke Article 32 to seek a writ against a governor.
Singhvi responded by asserting that a governor lacks the discretionary power to reject a bill passed by the assembly, warning that if a governor’s decisions are deemed non-justiciable, he could overshadow the elected representatives and assume the role of the supreme law-making authority merely by sidelining a bill.
Singhvi explained that if a governor withholds a bill, it should be returned to the assembly for reconsideration.
He stated,
“If the House does not repass the bill, it falls through. This is the intended meaning of Article 200 regarding a governor’s power to withhold assent. Otherwise, the democratic will of the people could be subverted,”
The bench further inquired whether a governor could reserve a bill for the President if it conflicted with central law. Singhvi answered that a governor may reserve a bill for the President upon its initial presentation.
He clarified,
“If the House approves it again, with or without amendments, the governor has no option but to give assent,”
In conclusion, Singhvi emphasized that a governor is merely an ‘ornamental head’ of the state.
Arguments from states opposing presidential references are anticipated to continue on Tuesday.
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