SC Weighs Governor’s Powers: Can Bills Be Withheld Indefinitely?

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 26thAugust-The Supreme Court of India continued hearing on Tuesday the high-stakes Presidential Reference concerning the powers and timelines of Governors and the President while dealing with Bills passed by State legislatures. A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, resumed its deliberations on Day 4 of arguments.

The matter stems from President Droupadi Murmu’s reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on significant questions of law. The referral follows the Court’s April 8 ruling in a case involving the Tamil Nadu Governor, where the top court held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent to State Bills.

Background of the Dispute

The April 8 judgment ruled that although Articles 200 and 201 (dealing with Governors’ and President’s assent powers) do not specify timelines, the constitutional silence cannot be used to stall democratic functioning. The Court said Governors must act within a “reasonable time” and capped the President’s decision-making period at three months.

This triggered concerns in the Union government, which argued that the judiciary was intruding into legislative functions. Consequently, President Murmu referred 14 constitutional questions to the Bench, including whether the Supreme Court can prescribe deadlines and if the concept of “deemed assent” exists under the Constitution.

While the Central government supported the reference, emphasizing that assent is a “high prerogative” function beyond judicially enforceable timelines, States like Tamil Nadu and Kerala opposed it as an attack on federalism and democratic accountability.

Day 4 Proceedings: Key Arguments

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing in support of the Union, focused on whether Governors’ discretion under Article 200 can be subjected to judicial review.

Salve argued that a Governor does have the power to withhold assent, though calling it a “veto” would be misleading.

He stressed that Governors act as a constitutional link between the Union and the States, and hence the Union’s role cannot be excluded when disputes arise.

On judicial review, Salve maintained that courts cannot demand explanations from Governors beyond the legality of their decisions.

Justice Narasimha pressed Salve on whether this interpretation would allow even money bills to be withheld indefinitely. Salve responded that the Constitution’s text allows withholding but cautioned against “reading timelines” where none exist.

The CJI intervened, remarking that giving Governors such unchecked powers would risk placing elected State governments “at the whims and fancies of unelected officials.”

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing Tamil Nadu, countered Salve by asserting that the Governor cannot sit on a bill indefinitely. He argued that once the Council of Ministers reiterates a bill, the Governor must either assent or forward it to the President, but not withhold it further. Judicial review, Kaul argued, was implicit in ensuring democratic accountability.

Maninder Singh, appearing for Rajasthan, described the Governor’s role in assent as part of the legislative process, not an executive function, suggesting it cannot be insulated from judicial scrutiny.

Constitutional Stakes

At the heart of the debate is whether Articles 200 and 201 provide Governors and the President an open-ended power to delay or deny assent to State legislation. The April 8 judgment had firmly held otherwise, insisting on accountability to prevent democratic paralysis.

The Presidential reference, however, challenges this approach, stressing that judicially mandated deadlines could upset the delicate balance between legislature, executive, and judiciary.

What Lies Ahead

The Bench is expected to continue hearing arguments through the week. The matter has attracted wide attention as its outcome will shape the scope of gubernatorial powers and the future of Centre-State relations in India’s federal framework.

For Indian democracy, the Court’s eventual opinion could either strengthen safeguards against unelected functionaries stalling legislation or reaffirm the independence of constitutional authorities like Governors and the President from judicial timelines.

As proceedings concluded on Day 4, the Bench cautioned lawyers against repetition and emphasized focusing only on the “core constitutional questions.” The hearings will resume on Wednesday.