After ten days of marathon arguments, the Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the Presidential reference asking whether constitutional courts can impose timelines for Governors and the President to assent to Bills passed by State legislatures.
At the heart of the reference lies the controversy over Governors allegedly sitting indefinitely on Bills, stalling the law-making process in States.
The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General R. Venkataramani, urged the court to adopt a cautious approach, warning that judicially imposed deadlines could destabilise constitutional design.
Several States, meanwhile, had argued earlier that the absence of timelines left their legislatures at the mercy of unelected constitutional heads.
Governor’s discretion a substantive stage, not clerical formality
Arguing for the Union, Mehta maintained that gubernatorial assent is not a mere rubber stamp but a substantive stage in law-making.
“Withholding of assent by the Governor is an independent option. The constitutional design treats the Governor’s assent as a substantive stage in the making of law and not as a mere clerical endorsement,” he told the Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai.
He added that the process would lose meaning if the Governor’s role were reduced to silence.
“The assent stage must be understood as a structured opportunity for principled engagement,” Mehta said.
Return of Bills and technical clarifications
Clarifying procedural doubts, the SG submitted that when a Governor returns a Bill for reconsideration, the act is accompanied by a formal declaration of withholding assent.
“The gubernatorial message under proviso 1 of Article 200 chalks out the scope of reconsideration,” he explained.
If a legislature reconsiders and passes the same Bill within the same year, it retains its original number. However, if reconsidered the following year, it will receive a new number, he said.
Constitutionality of Bills can be examined at assent stage
Both SG Mehta and AG Venkataramani stressed that Governors have the power to examine the constitutionality of a Bill before granting assent.
“At the Bill stage, the Governor has power to examine its constitutionality. Once a Bill becomes an Act, it is open for judicial review,” the AG submitted.
Mehta further argued that Governors could reserve Bills for Presidential consideration in cases where they subvert the Constitution, erode democracy, or have implications beyond the State.
No straitjacket timelines, says Centre
A consistent theme of the Centre’s submissions was opposition to fixed timelines.
“The Supreme Court cannot impose a one-size-fits-all time frame. Each case turns on its peculiar facts,” SG Mehta said.
He warned that straitjacket deadlines may become self-destructive, especially in cases where further deliberation between the Governor and State is required.
Citing data, he said that in the last 50 years, over 90 Bills have received assent within a month, indicating that Governors do not sit endlessly over legislation.
Separation of powers at stake
The SG also cautioned the Court against overreach. Issuing a mandamus compelling assent, he argued, would amount to the judiciary directing the Governor to exercise discretion in a particular manner: an encroachment on legislative processes.
“Issuing a mandamus on the legislative functions of a constitutional authority would violate the theory of separation of powers, which is part of the Constitution’s Basic Structure,” he said.
He also rejected the claim made by several States that assent powers were executive in nature, asserting instead that assent is quasi-legislative and sui generis.
Bench’s pointed questions
The Bench, however, pressed the Centre on whether indefinite withholding was acceptable.
“There is no difficulty if the Governor withholds a Bill and sends back the message. The question is whether the Governor can withhold endlessly without sending a message,” CJI Gavai asked the Attorney General.
Justice Surya Kant observed that while the Court could not dictate the manner in which a Governor exercises discretion, it could certainly ask that a decision be taken. “In such a case, a mandamus can be issued,” he said.
The CJI also reflected on the broader democratic concern:
“If one wing of democracy fails in the discharge of its duties, would the Court, which is the custodian of the Constitution, be powerless and forced to sit idle?”
Harmony envisaged by framers
CJI Gavai reminded counsel that the framers of the Constitution envisaged harmony between Governors and elected governments.
ALSO READ | Supreme Court questions extent of immunity enjoyed by governors
“While appointing Governors, normally the provincial governments would be taken on board,” he recalled. Governors, he added, were expected to act as true guides and philosophers, rather than obstructionists.
With arguments concluded, the bench reserved its judgement, leaving the legal and political establishment awaiting clarity on whether constitutional courts can impose deadlines or procedural safeguards on gubernatorial assent.
The verdict, whenever delivered, is expected to shape Centre-State relations for decades to come defining not only the Governor’s role but also the limits of judicial intervention in legislative processes.