Prez reference: Guv expected to act on bills within reasonable time, says SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored that governors are constitutionally bound to act within a “reasonable time” when dealing with bills passed by state legislatures, even in the absence of the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 of the Constitution.

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, continued hearings on the presidential reference concerning whether governors and the President can indefinitely delay action on bills presented to them. The bench reiterated that its role was limited to interpreting constitutional provisions rather than scrutinising individual disputes.

Article 200 outlines the Governor’s powers in relation to state legislation, granting three options—assent to a bill, return it to the legislature for reconsideration (if not a money bill), or reserve it for the President’s consideration. The provision also states that if the assembly returns the bill after reconsideration, the Governor is bound to grant assent.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the Punjab government, argued that the framers deliberately used the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 to ensure urgency. He urged the court to prescribe a three-month deadline for governors to decide on bills. “Governor has options under Article 200. He does not have the discretion,” he said, adding that indefinite withholding of assent would distort the constitutional scheme.

The bench, however, clarified, “Even if the term ‘as soon as possible’ were not there, the Governor was expected to act within reasonable time.”

Representing Kerala, senior advocate K K Venugopal pointed out that former Governor Arif Mohammad Khan often sought inputs from ministries before deciding on bills. He warned that delays in dealing with legislation, especially money bills concerning salaries and financial obligations, could disrupt governance. “Could one imagine a Governor sitting over a money bill for 10 months?” he asked, underlining that Articles 200 and 201 should be read as requiring timely action.

For Karnataka, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium submitted that under the constitutional framework, both the President and governors function as “titular heads” acting on the aid and advice of their respective councils of ministers. Citing Article 361, which grants immunity to constitutional heads from legal proceedings, he said, “Executive powers are not exercised by them individually but under ministerial advice through rules of business.”

He further argued that the Constitution does not permit “parallel administrations” or allow governors to override elected governments. Referring to the 44th Constitutional Amendment, Subramanium noted that while the President may return ministerial advice for reconsideration, she is ultimately bound to accept it. “The President is a constitutional head, bound by aid and advice,” he said, asserting that the same principle applies to governors under Article 163 except in narrowly defined discretionary situations such as Article 356.

Subramanium cautioned that granting governors unchecked discretion would revive a colonial-era approach. “The Governor is not an agent of the union but takes oath for the well-being of the state,” he said, stressing that Article 200 provides no scope for an indefinite veto. “There is no fourth option of withholding assent indefinitely. Any suggestion of an unqualified veto is antithetical to the Constitution.”

Datar also warned of constitutional consequences if governors could indefinitely stall bills. “To accept the union’s stand that Governor can withhold a bill indefinitely creates a constitutional paradox. The Governor is not a constitutional filter,” he said, arguing that withholding assent must be linked with a message to the legislature and not treated as a permanent pause button.

The hearing, now in its eighth day, is scheduled to conclude on September 10. The court is examining 14 questions referred by President Droupadi Murmu, including whether governors and the President can indefinitely withhold assent to bills and whether courts may prescribe mandatory timelines for such decisions.