The Supreme Court of India, on September 10, 2025, raised crucial questions about the role of Governors in granting assent to bills passed by State legislatures. A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai was hearing a Presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution. The reference sought clarity on the Court’s April 2025 judgment that laid down timelines for Governors to act on bills.
At the heart of the debate is a constitutional question: Can Governors withhold bills indefinitely, or are they bound to act within a reasonable time? The Court’s observations have reignited discussions on federalism, legislative supremacy, and the constitutional role of Governors in India’s democratic framework.
Background: The April 2025 Ruling
The Presidential reference stems from the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (April 11, 2025). In that case, the Court ruled that:
- Governors must act within a reasonable time and cannot indefinitely withhold assent.
- Constitutional silence cannot stall the democratic process.
- The President’s powers under Article 201 are not beyond judicial scrutiny and must be exercised within three months.
Following this ruling, President Droupadi Murmu referred 14 constitutional questions to the Court, including whether the judiciary can impose timelines where the Constitution is silent and whether such judicial intervention infringes on the discretionary powers of the President and Governors.
Supreme Court’s Concern: Is It a “False Alarm”?
During the hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued that concerns about Governors stalling bills are exaggerated. He pointed out that from 1970 to 2025, only 20 bills were withheld out of nearly 17,000, and that 90% of bills received assent within one month.
However, CJI BR Gavai questioned this stance:
“How can you say it is a false alarm if bills are pending for 4 years before the Governor?”
The Bench clarified that relying solely on statistics is insufficient. Justice Vikram Nath noted that India’s democracy has survived for 75 years regardless of how many bills were assented to or withheld.
Key Arguments Before the Court
1. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi
They opposed the Solicitor General’s reliance on selective data, reminding the Court that the Union government had previously objected when States presented their own figures.
2. Niranjan Reddy for Telangana
Reddy highlighted that the Governor’s role should not expand beyond constitutional limits. He argued that Article 200 only permits discretion when reserving a bill for the President’s consideration. Expanding this discretion to allow withholding of assent could have dangerous implications, even for the Union level under Article 111.
“If the President does not have such discretion at the Union level, why should the Governor have it at the State level?” Reddy asked.
3. Senior Advocate P Wilson
Wilson stressed that the Supreme Court cannot become an intermediary between the Governor and State legislatures. He supported the Tamil Nadu judgment, saying it had strengthened States’ rights and clarified the legislative process.
4. Advocate Avani Bansal
Bansal introduced a novel argument: recognition of the “Right to Time” as a fundamental right under Article 14. She contended that arbitrary delays by Governors or the President in acting on bills are unconstitutional.
“Arbitrariness and equality are sworn enemies,” she argued, urging the Court to treat delayed assent as a violation of constitutional equality.
5. Other Submissions
- Gopal Sankaranarayanan emphasized that the Court’s advisory opinion under Article 143 is more than a report—it carries binding constitutional weight.
- Sidharth Luthra for Andhra Pradesh supported the Centre but opposed the idea that States cannot approach the Court under Article 32 in cases involving public interest issues like pollution or disasters.
The Centre’s Response
In his rejoinder, SG Mehta clarified that:
- Governors cannot indefinitely sit on bills; however, they are not mere “postmen.”
- Governors may engage in a consultative process, advising State governments if parts of a bill conflict with Union laws.
- The Supreme Court’s advisory opinions are binding and may even overrule earlier interpretations.
Responding to arguments that Governors are ceremonial, Mehta remarked:
“They argue that he is only a postman with a beacon on his car and a bigger house. That is a flawed constitutional argument.”
Judicial Observations
The Bench made several notable remarks during the hearing:
- Justice Narasimha: The Constitution is an evolving document, and Governor’s discretion must be interpreted in light of federalism and democracy.
- Justice Nath: Political timelines before and after 2014 are irrelevant; the focus should remain on constitutional interpretation.
- CJI Gavai: Highlighted that while India has upheld its democratic framework for 75 years, governance must adapt to current challenges.
Why This Case Matters
This Presidential reference is significant for several reasons:
- Federal Balance: It will determine whether Governors can use silence or inaction to block State legislations.
- Judicial Innovation: The Court is considering whether it can create procedural safeguards in constitutional silences.
- Citizens’ Rights: The idea of a “Right to Time” could expand the ambit of Article 14 and set a precedent against arbitrary executive delays.
- Legislative Efficiency: States argue that indefinite withholding undermines elected legislatures, weakening democracy.
What Happens Next?
The Solicitor General will continue submissions on Thursday, after which the Court is likely to reserve its opinion. The final decision will clarify:
- Whether the April 2025 ruling stands,
- How far Governors’ discretion extends, and
- Whether the judiciary can set timelines where the Constitution is silent.
Conclusion
The ongoing Supreme Court hearings on the Presidential reference regarding Governors’ assent to bills highlight a core tension in India’s constitutional democracy—the balance between federalism and executive discretion. While the Centre argues that delays are rare and Governors play a consultative role, States and advocates maintain that unchecked discretion undermines democracy.
As the Court prepares to deliver its advisory opinion, the ruling could reshape the constitutional understanding of Articles 200 and 201, setting new standards for the functioning of Governors and strengthening India’s democratic institutions.
Also Read
Supreme Court Rules 30-Day Limit for Filing Cheque Dishonour Complaints Under NI Act Is Mandatory
