The Congress-led Karnataka government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that under the constitutional framework, the President and governors act merely as “titular heads” and are bound to follow the aid and advice of the council of ministers, both at the Centre and in the states.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai heard submissions from senior advocate Gopal Subramanian, who appeared on behalf of the Karnataka government. The bench also comprised Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar.
Subramanian argued that Article 361 of the Constitution grants immunity to the President and governors from criminal proceedings since they do not exercise executive functions themselves. “The satisfaction of the governor required for acting on bills passed by the assembly is the satisfaction of the council of ministers,” he said, stressing that there is no scope for parallel administration in states outside the elected government’s authority.
Chief Justice Gavai posed a pointed question on whether, under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)—which requires prior sanction to prosecute public servants—the governor must also act on ministerial advice. Subramanian acknowledged that past judgments have held that the governor acts independently in such matters, exercising discretion under Section 197 of the CrPC.
The arguments form part of the Presidential reference currently being examined by the top court. President Droupadi Murmu, in May, invoked Article 143(1) to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether it can impose timelines for the President and governors while dealing with bills passed by state legislatures.
The reference raises 14 significant constitutional questions, including whether governors and the President can indefinitely withhold assent to bills and whether courts may prescribe mandatory time frames for their decisions.
On September 3, the West Bengal government had argued that governors cannot subject the will of the people, expressed through legislative bills, to their “whims and fancies.” It submitted that questioning a bill’s legislative competence falls within the judiciary’s domain, not that of the executive.
The hearings, which entered their eighth day on Tuesday, continue to grapple with the delicate balance between legislative supremacy, executive discretion, and judicial oversight in India’s constitutional scheme.
