THE SUPREME COURT TODAY referred to developments in neighbouring Nepal while asserting that it is “proud” of the Indian Constitution, even as the Centre reiterated its opposition to the Court fixing timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by State legislatures.
“We are proud of our Constitution. See what is happening in our neighbouring states… Nepal we saw,” said Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a five-judge Constitution Bench hearing the Presidential Reference seeking an advisory opinion on whether the Court could prescribe a timeframe for constitutional functionaries to decide on Bills presented for assent.
Justice Vikram Nath, another member of the Bench, added: “Yes, Bangladesh also.”
The Bench also comprises Justices Surya Kant, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar.
On the ninth day of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in his rejoinder submissions, described as “aberration” the conduct of Governors in some Opposition-ruled States who had withheld assent to Bills for long durations or indefinitely.
Since 1970, in the last 54 years, he said, 17,000 Bills had been presented before Governors, and only in 20 cases was assent withheld indefinitely.
“Inaction by the Governors in one or two States cannot lead to the conclusion of felt necessity, and the remedy is not to amend the Constitution by a judgment. It cannot immobilise one constitutional authority,” Mehta argued, “There has to be a collaborative exercise and a balancing act. If the Governor has no powers or discretion, then where comes the collaborative exercise? We may have Governors who have not acted in the way they were expected. We have a strong democracy. There are political dialogues and political solutions. Not everything comes to this Court.”
The Solicitor General furnished data to back his argument. Since 1970, in the last 54 years, he said, 17,000 Bills had been presented before Governors, and only in 20 cases was assent withheld indefinitely. In 90 percent of cases, assent was given in less than a month; in some cases, within two or three months, and only rarely beyond six months.
The Bench, however, objected to the Solicitor General citing figures. “This is not fair. We have not permitted them (opposing reference) to give empirical data; you too objected to it and now you are doing it. How is it relevant to the issue before the Court for answering the Presidential Reference? We have not permitted them; we will not permit you. Why don’t you talk about it since 1950 till date?” the CJI and the bench told Mehta.
They further pressed him: “In how many cases have the Governors withheld the assent to Bills indefinitely?” When Mehta said there were 20 such instances, the Bench asked: “In how many cases has the Governor made a declaration that he would withhold the assent?”
Mehta reiterated that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor has four options—giving assent, returning the Bill to the legislature with a message, reserving it for consideration by the President, or withholding it indefinitely.
Referring to the oath of office taken by the President and the Governors, he argued that both the President and Governors, as constitutional functionaries, and the President cannot be equated with the British Crown. “What we have borrowed from the UK is the skeleton of parliamentary democracy. The role of the President of India cannot be compared with the British Crown, which is hereditary, whereas the President of India is elected by the representatives of the people,” he said.
The Solicitor General also rejected the notion that the Governor was merely a titular figure. “The Governor is not just a post office with a car with beacon and a big bungalow to live in but has discretion in the exercise of his powers,” he submitted.
The hearing will continue on Thursday, September 11, with Solicitor General Mehta further advancing his arguments.
The Union Government has supported the Reference, contending that the Court’s earlier intervention intruded upon the executive and the legislature’s constitutional domain.
The Presidential Reference, made on May 15, 2025, questions whether the judiciary exceeded its jurisdiction in prescribing timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills, and whether the concept of “deemed assent” undermines the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Union Government has supported the Reference, contending that the Court’s earlier intervention intruded upon the executive and the legislature’s constitutional domain. Several BJP-ruled States have backed this stance.
However, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have opposed the maintainability of the Reference. Kerala argued that Article 143 permits advisory jurisdiction only in matters unsettled in law. Since Articles 200 and 201 had already been interpreted by the Court, Kerala maintained that the present Reference was legally untenable.