'Can governors indefinitely stall state laws? SC examines gubernatorial powers to withhold bill assent

“The real question is not the count of pending Bills but whether a governor can stall a law indefinitely,” Justice Surya Kant observed on Wednesday, as the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench resumed hearing the presidential reference on gubernatorial powers. 

The Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is examining whether timelines can be imposed on the president and state governors when dealing with Bills duly passed by state legislatures. 

The day’s proceedings reflected the judges’ unease with the Centre’s proposition that a Bill could effectively collapse at the threshold if a governor withholds assent, raising fundamental concerns about legislative supremacy and constitutional accountability.

Justice P.S. Narasimha also asked a pointed question to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, "How do we reconcile to your argument that a governor, at the very outset, can withhold assent to a Bill so that it fails?” 

“Should there not be a consultative process, by which the Bill is returned to the state legislature for reconsideration? This way, both the assembly and the governor get a role to play,” Justice Narasimha pressed.

The solicitor general, leading the Centre’s defence of gubernatorial discretion, argued back that the governor cannot be reduced to an ornamental head of state.

“Reasoned consultation and principled participation is necessary,” Mehta insisted, “rather than a mere mechanical signature from the governor. I am suggesting a balance. The opposing states are on an extreme stance that a governor is to mechanically sign Bills.”

To stress his point, he recalled that “for the past 55 years every governor has acted in a way expected of them, in a collaborative manner.”

But the Bench was not convinced. CJI Gavai firmly rejected the SG’s attempt to introduce empirical data; Mehta had cited that only 20 Bills had been withheld since 1970 out of over 17,000 passed. “The question is not whether one Bill is withheld or a thousand,” Justice Vikram Nath observed. “The question is whether a governor can withhold a Bill indefinitely.”

The chief justice too cut in, pointing out that if Mehta’s interpretation of Article 200 meant 'withhold' was equivalent to Bill falling through, then it implied a governor could paralyse the legislature at will. “We are proud of our Constitution,” Justice Nath remarked, contrasting it with turmoil in Nepal, but stressed that the issue was one of principle, not numbers.

The SG sought to reassure the Court that his stand was not that governors could sit endlessly on Bills. He stressed that governors had a duty to protect the Constitution and sometimes had to act as neutral umpires when the interests of the states and Union clashed. He invoked the example of the Punjab governor withholding assent to the 2016 Satluj-Yamuna Link Canal Land Bill, arguing that assent in that case would have damaged cooperative federalism.

At the same time, he maintained, the governor was not a super CM but had a dual role, ordinarily acting on cabinet advice but also serving as a vital link between State and Union, and in certain rare circumstances, as the Union’s representative. “Governor is an independent constitutional office, not a servant of the government,” he emphasised.

Opposing states, however, argued that the SG’s interpretation turned the governor into a parallel legislative veto. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi rejected the Centre’s reliance on data, pointing out that the real problem was of recent trends, where governors have delayed or withheld assent for years. “Nothing like this had happened with governors like now,” Sibal said.

Advocates for the intervenors pressed that the constitutional silence around timelines could not be exploited to stall democracy. 

Advocate Avani Bansal argued that without specified limits, governors and president could arbitrarily abuse their powers, creating a complete constitutional impasse by frustrating the will of the people. She invoked the Sarkaria Commission, which recommended time-bound decision-making to prevent governors from becoming political instruments. 

“If a Bill to bring healthcare to a far-flung place is delayed for three to four years, the citizen has nowhere to go. The citizen cannot become a sitting duck,” she said.

Senior advocate P. Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu’s ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), said, “A Bill is nothing but an expression of political will. A governor cannot act like a constitutional court and adjudicate on the constitutionality of a Bill,". He added that if no timelines were set, state legislatures would be left to wander the corridors of the court. 

The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on Thursday as well.