The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that it will confine itself to interpreting the provisions of the Constitution while examining the Presidential reference on whether timelines can be imposed on governors and the President in dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, is hearing the matter under Article 143(1) of the Constitution.
The clarification came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected to references being made by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi to examples from Andhra Pradesh and other states. Mehta argued that if such instances were to be relied upon, the Centre would need to file a reply to demonstrate “how the Constitution was taken on a joyride since its inception.”
Responding, CJI Gavai said, “We are not going into individual instances whether it’s Andhra Pradesh or Telangana or Karnataka, but we will only interpret the provisions of the Constitution. Nothing else.”
Singhvi, representing states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, explained the circumstances under which a bill may “fall through.” He said this occurs, for example, when a state assembly chooses not to reconsider a bill returned by the governor under Article 200.
However, the Bench pressed him on situations where a governor withholds a bill indefinitely without sending it back. Singhvi responded that in such cases, earlier verdicts suggest the bill lapses unless the first proviso to Article 200—requiring reconsideration by the assembly—is invoked.
Article 200 empowers governors to assent to, withhold, return, or reserve bills for presidential consideration. Its proviso mandates that if a bill is returned and passed again by the assembly, the governor must give assent.
On August 28, the court observed that the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 would be rendered meaningless if governors were allowed to sit on bills “for eternity.” Earlier, on August 26, the Bench had also questioned whether courts should remain powerless if constitutional authorities indefinitely delay assent.
While BJP-ruled states have defended the autonomy of governors and the President, contending that “assent to a law cannot be given by court,” opposition-led states have argued that judicial timelines are necessary to prevent constitutional deadlock. The Centre also submitted that states cannot move the apex court on grounds of violation of fundamental rights in such matters.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu invoked her advisory power under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking clarity from the Supreme Court on whether judicial directions could impose timelines on the President or governors when exercising their discretion over state legislation.
