The Congress-ruled Telangana government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that a governor is ordinarily bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers, including in matters of granting prosecution sanction, except in instances where a chief minister or a minister is personally implicated in a criminal case.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is hearing a Presidential reference under Article 143(1) on whether constitutional authorities such as governors and the President can indefinitely delay decisions on bills passed by state legislatures and whether courts can prescribe binding timelines for such actions.
Appearing for the Telangana government, senior advocate Niranjan Reddy submitted that the court must also consider the “inherent bias” of governors who, in some states, have withheld assent to bills. He cited the example of Tamil Nadu, where the governor sat on a bill removing the governor from the position of chancellor of state-run universities.
Reddy argued that the second proviso to Article 200 indicates that the governor has no discretion in ordinary circumstances and is constitutionally bound by the council of ministers’ advice. Article 200 empowers governors to assent to, withhold, return for reconsideration, or reserve bills for the President’s consideration.
The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, has been hearing arguments from opposition-ruled states that are resisting the Presidential reference, which arose from the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict in the Tamil Nadu governor’s case.
On Tuesday, the court observed that governors are expected to act within a “reasonable time” even if the phrase “as soon as possible” were not expressly mentioned in Article 200.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing the Punjab government, argued that the framers of the Constitution deliberately inserted “as soon as possible” in Article 200, and the court is empowered to set a timeline—such as three months—for granting assent to bills.
Former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, pointed to the practice of then-Governor Arif Mohammad Khan, who would seek briefings from concerned ministries on bills before taking a decision.
The Karnataka government, also led by the Congress, maintained that under the constitutional framework, both the President and governors are “titular heads,” required to act strictly on ministerial advice.
The Presidential reference places before the court 14 key questions, including whether governors can withhold assent indefinitely and whether the judiciary can mandate timeframes for decisions by the President or governors on state bills.
The hearing is ongoing, with arguments by opposition-ruled states expected to conclude later in the day.
