The Supreme Court on Tuesday posed sharp questions on whether Governors and the President can indefinitely delay giving assent to bills passed by state legislatures, warning that such a practice could leave the judiciary “powerless” and even extend to money bills.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai raised the concerns while hearing a Presidential reference on whether courts can impose timelines for Governors and the President in dealing with state bills. The bench also comprised Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar.
The bench asked whether Governors could sit over bills for years despite repeated legislative approval.
“Suppose a bill is passed in 2020, will the court be powerless if the assent is not granted even in 2025? … We appreciate that we cannot fix timelines, but if someone sits, will the court be powerless?” CJI Gavai questioned.
Justice Narasimha flagged a constitutional anomaly: “With this power, even a money bill can be withheld … There is a big problem with that interpretation.”
Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Madhya Pradesh, argued that assent to bills is a high constitutional function not amenable to judicial timelines. “There are no justiciable manageable standards,” he submitted, insisting that only Parliament could decide on such matters.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing Maharashtra, stressed that Article 200 provides no timeframe and that decisions on bills often involve “political deliberations” rather than judicially enforceable limits. He also invoked Article 361, which grants immunity to Governors and the President from court scrutiny over the exercise of their powers.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, clarified that money bills cannot be withheld since under Article 207 they are introduced only with the Governor’s consent.
The court noted that while it cannot rewrite the Constitution, unchecked discretion raises issues of accountability. Referring to its earlier April 8 ruling deeming Tamil Nadu’s pending bills as assented, the bench clarified that the present reference would not revisit that verdict.
The states of Uttar Pradesh and Odisha, represented by Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, also argued for functional autonomy of Governors and the President, warning that courts should not supply “casus omissus” (gaps not covered in the Constitution).
The court indicated it may ask Governors to explain prolonged withholding of bills but stopped short of suggesting that it could compel assent. “The court can only ask what your decision is. But the court cannot ask why you have taken a decision,” Salve submitted.
