In a crucial constitutional hearing today, September 3, 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India delved into a Presidential Reference seeking advisory opinions on the powers of Governors to withhold assent to state bills and the role of courts in setting timelines for such decisions. The reference, made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution by President Droupadi Murmu, addresses 14 specific questions arising from recent disputes, particularly the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delays in assenting to bills. The bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, J.K. Maheshwari, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Sanjay Kumar, heard detailed arguments from the Attorney General and state representatives, emphasizing the balance between executive discretion and legislative autonomy.
Background of the Reference: Stemming from Tamil Nadu Governor Case
The reference originates from the Supreme Court’s July 2025 judgment in the Tamil Nadu vs. Governor case, where the Court criticized Governor R.N. Ravi for withholding assent to 10 state bills without valid reasons, deeming it an abuse of power under Article 200. The Court directed the Governor to either assent or return the bills promptly but refrained from fixing a rigid timeline, prompting the President to seek clarification on broader constitutional questions. Key issues include whether Governors can indefinitely delay bills, the scope of “reconsideration” under Article 200, and if courts can intervene by imposing deadlines to prevent “pocket vetoes.”
The 14 questions cover scenarios like repeated returns of bills, the President’s role under Article 201, and the applicability of Article 142 (Supreme Court’s curative powers). States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab, which have faced similar gubernatorial delays, intervened to argue for stricter judicial oversight, while the Centre defended gubernatorial discretion as a federal safeguard.
Key Arguments and Court Observations
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Union, submitted that Governors act as constitutional sentinels to ensure bills align with national interests, but their powers are not absolute and must be exercised “as soon as possible.” He cautioned against judicial timelines, arguing they could encroach on executive functions and disrupt federal balance. Senior Advocates like Kapil Sibal (for Tamil Nadu) and Harish Salve (for Kerala) countered that prolonged delays undermine state legislatures’ sovereignty, violating the basic structure of the Constitution. They cited precedents like Nabam Rebia (2016), urging the Court to affirm that inaction beyond a reasonable period (e.g., three months) warrants judicial intervention.
The bench engaged deeply, with CJI Gavai questioning whether “reasonable time” could be statutorily defined or left to judicial discretion. Justice Dhulia highlighted the risk of political misuse, noting, “Governors are not above the Constitution; delays can’t be a tool for veto by default.” The Court reserved orders but indicated it might provide binding guidelines to prevent future conflicts, potentially referencing the Sarkaria Commission recommendations.
This hearing follows the Court’s August 2025 directive in a related matter, where it reprimanded the Kerala Governor for similar delays, underscoring the judiciary’s growing role in gubernatorial accountability.
Implications for Federalism and State Autonomy
A definitive opinion could reshape Centre-state relations, empowering states against perceived overreach by Governors (often seen as central appointees). It might lead to clearer protocols for bill processing, reducing litigation and ensuring smoother legislative functioning. Legal experts predict the Court could endorse soft timelines (e.g., 30-60 days) while upholding Governors’ veto powers in exceptional cases, aligning with the spirit of cooperative federalism under Article 246.
The reference highlights ongoing tensions, as seen in recent cases from Punjab and West Bengal. If the Court affirms judicial timelines, it could set a precedent for invoking Article 142 to enforce constitutional deadlines, strengthening legislative democracy.
Lawcutor 