The Supreme Court on Wednesday witnessed sharp exchanges over the role of Governors in granting assent to state legislations, as the Centre claimed that 90 per cent of bills passed by state assemblies since 1970 had received gubernatorial assent within one month. The law officer also said that in the past 55 years, Governors had withheld assent in only 20 instances out of 17,150 bills.
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, objected to the Centre’s reliance on such data during the hearing of the presidential reference on timelines for Governors and the President to deal with state bills.
The bench reminded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, that opposing parties were earlier not permitted to rely on empirical data. “It will not be fair to other side as they were not allowed to refer to any such data,” the court observed.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for those challenging the reference, strongly opposed the Centre’s move, pointing out that they were barred from making similar submissions.
Defending the constitutional position of Governors, Mehta argued against the “postman analogy” put forth by opposition-ruled states. “The Governor is not a postman with only two differences – a beacon on his car and a bigger house. Such an interpretation is constitutionally flawed,” he said.
He stressed that Governors cannot be reduced to “rubber stamps” and must act impartially when state and Union interests are in conflict. “The Governor is not an employee of the government, nor an agent of the ruling party, nor required to act under diktats of political parties,” he submitted.
Referring to Article 200, Mehta said the Constitution provides Governors with the options of assenting, withholding, reserving for the President, or returning bills. He rejected the interpretation that withholding assent was a temporary option, insisting it must carry substantive meaning.
The bench acknowledged the “enormous task” of balancing two extreme positions – one arguing that Governors are fully bound by ministerial advice, and the other granting them wide discretion.
Justice Narasimha questioned whether it was acceptable for Governors to indefinitely withhold assent when federalism requires dialogue. “The assembly considers the Governor’s view, which may reflect the Centre’s perspective, but to say outright that assent can be withheld is a difficult proposition,” he remarked.
Meanwhile, Justice Vikram Nath flagged the scale of the task, noting that case records were running into nearly 25,000 pages.
The Congress-ruled Telangana government reiterated that ordinarily Governors are bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers, including in matters of granting prosecution sanction, except where the Chief Minister or a minister is personally implicated.
The court is examining 14 questions referred by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1). These include whether Governors and the President can indefinitely withhold assent to bills and whether the judiciary can mandate specific timelines for such constitutional functions.
