Today, On 2nd September, in the Presidential Reference Row, Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that Governors cannot keep Bills in pending, withhold assent, or act as judges over State legislations. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said only the courts can decide constitutionality, not Governors or Presidents.
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.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing Tamil Nadu strongly argued before the Supreme Court that a Governor has no power to sit indefinitely on Bills passed by a State Assembly.
He said,
“The Governor cannot withhold assent, kill a bill or be a judge in this. He is not the final arbiter or the super chief minister.”
He reminded the court that even if an allegedly unconstitutional Bill is passed every day by a majority in the Assembly, it is the courts that ultimately decide its validity.
He said,
“Ultimately, allegedly unconstitutional bills are passed every day, and courts will decide that. Even if majority introduced it courts will see it.. that is separation of power,”
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai also made it clear that the Presidential Reference is focussed only on the question of law regarding the discretion and prescription of time limits on Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
He said,
“We are not on anything happening in individual States,”
Mr. Singhvi challenged the Centre’s claim that if the Governor withholds assent, the Bills fail. He said this view makes the entire procedure in Article 200 pointless and without any purpose.
The proviso about returning the Bill, reconsideration by the Assembly, and reference to the President would have no purpose if Governors could simply keep Bills in limbo.
Withholding assent and sending a Bill back is only “one composite step,” and the next step is the legislature’s choice to re-pass or withdraw. According to him, “only the legislature can kill a Bill.”
He added that Governors cannot act as an “all-pervading super Constitutional authority.”
Quoting from the Nabam Rebia judgment, he said,
“Governors cannot assume to be royalty in a republic.”
If Governors are allowed to indefinitely hold on to Bills, it would destroy the balance of powers and the very foundation of the Constitution.
Mr. Singhvi also dismissed the Centre’s claim that gubernatorial delay has only a political solution. He said that no Constitutional action in violation of the text or intent can be shielded by calling it a political question.
He stressed that,
“Neither Governor nor the President have any high plenary powers which oust even judicial review.”
On judicial review, he explained that neither Article 200 nor Article 201 gives the Governor or the President unlimited powers beyond scrutiny.
Emphasising that the conduct of Governors and the President under these Articles is subject to review,he said,
“Judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution,”
When the Chief Justice asked why the Governor cannot consider international aspects or security concerns while assenting to Bills, Mr. Singhvi responded that such concerns can only justify sending the Bill back once to the Assembly. Beyond that, the Governor cannot hold on to it.
He explained that Bills are a reflection of the needs of the people and must be dealt with quickly, not kept as “pious hopes.”
He even said if Governors want to decide on political or security issues, then He should fight elections and become CM.
On immunity under Article 361, he argued that protection from legal action is extended to many public servants, including the Chief Election Commissioner, but this does not stop courts from reviewing mala fide or unconstitutional conduct.
Pointing out that the court intervenes every day where Constitutional balance is threatened, he said,
“Articles 200, 201 do not oust judicial review,”
Mr. Singhvi concluded that deliberate disharmony is being created to escape judicial scrutiny. He said that even government decisions are explained to the courts through affidavits, and Governors cannot hide behind Constitutional immunity when their actions or omissions are mala fide.
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