Is Governor's indefinite delay on bill beyond review, top court asks Centre

New Delhi,UPDATED: Aug 21, 2025 20:59 IST

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned whether a Governor could keep a Bill passed by the legislature pending indefinitely and if such a delay was entirely outside the scope of judicial review.

Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, heading a five-judge Constitution Bench, asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta whether such indefinite delay would still remain beyond judicial review. “Either the Governor gives assent or does not. But if he keeps it pending for an unlimited period, is that completely outside judicial scrutiny?” the CJI asked during a hearing on a Presidential Reference.

Mehta argued that when a bill is presented to a Governor, they have the power under Article 200 of the Constitution to simply refuse to approve it. This refusal, or withholding of assent, means the bill effectively dies. The Governor cannot send it back to the legislature for reconsideration, leaving no further recourse for the bill.

"This Court is not the answer, unless there is a constitutional amendment,” he said.

WHAT CENTRE TOLD COURT

The Solicitor General argued that the framers of the Constitution deliberately did not set timelines for the President or Governors to act on Bills. “The Government of India Act, 1915 had a timeline. But the Constituent Assembly consciously removed it. Dr B R Ambedkar replaced ‘six weeks’ with ‘as soon as possible’ in Article 111,” he said.

Mehta added, “Our parliamentary democracy has clearly demarcated powers. The Court’s role is judicial review, not governance. If the buck stops at this Court for every problem, that is not the heart and soul of separation of powers.”

He maintained that any exercise of power under Article 200 — whether assent, withholding assent, or returning a Bill — was outside the scope of judicial review.

The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, observed that while courts cannot probe why assent was given, they can examine the constitutionality of the process. “When it comes to a question of law, that too becomes part of the decision-making process,” the CJI noted.

ABOUT THE CASE

The Presidential Reference was made to clarify the powers of the President and Governors in granting assent to Bills. On Day 1, the bench stressed that advisory opinions under Article 143 cannot overrule existing judgments.

Justice Surya Kant had underlined, “We are in advisory jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction. We will answer only if a question of law has arisen.” Justice P S Narasimha added that such opinions “cannot be treated as precedents.”

Attorney General R Venkataramani earlier told the court that the Governor has four options under Article 200—grant assent, withhold assent, return the Bill, or reserve it for the President—and cautioned against the judiciary stepping into the legislative domain. “It is a matter of textual amendment. Can the Court rewrite the Constitution?” he asked.

The hearings will continue next week.

- Ends