Governor is not Super Chief Minister, cannot withhold assent: Tamil Nadu tells Supreme Court

State of Tamil Nadu today told the Supreme Court that a Governor is not the final arbiter or the super chief minister. Court was further told that a Governor cannot withhold assent or kill a bill.

"Unconstitutional bills are passed everyday and courts will decide on that. Even if majority has introduced it courts will see it.. that is separation of power", Senior Advocate AM Singhvi appearing for the state of Tamil Nadu told the five judge bench hearing the presidential reference on timelines imposed for granting assent to Bills.

On the protections granted to President and Governors under Article 361, court was told that Article 361 protects the functionaries from civil and criminal action but there was no bar on judicial review against decisions taken by them. "If governor and President are exempted from judicial review then their jurisdiction of power is stretched beyond limits and antithetical to separation of power...", Singhvi added.

During Singhvi's submissions today, CJI Gavai remarked that the courts' decisions were not based on which political dispensation was in power or was not in power. The court today saw an exchange of words between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate AM Singhvi. Singhvi, during his submissions referred to similar situations of governor withholding assent arising in states other than Tamil Nadu. In response, SG Mehta said, "If we travel down this dirty path I am also willing to do so...".

The Central government last week had told the Supreme Court that matters closely linked with high policy or political discretion, should be considered non-justiciable as it may require choices for which there exists no clear legal standards. In an additional note submitted by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the special reference case before the Supreme Court, the distinction between judicial review and justiciability has been relied upon.

Earlier, the Supreme Court was also told that the President of India requires its assistance of the aspect of writ petition under Article 32 being filed by states over the pendency of a Bill before the Governor or the President and the protection granted to President and Governors under Article 361 from being answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of their office.

Maharashtra government has also told the Supreme Court that assent to a Bill cannot be given by the court. "Assent to a law has to be given either by Governors or by President", Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing Maharashtra government had submitted adding that President or Governor cannot be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of their office or for any act done or purporting to be done in the exercise of those powers.

On August 19 the Supreme Court began hearing the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu. During one of the hearing the Supreme Court of India said that judicial activism must remain, but it should not turn into judicial terrorism or judicial adventurism. "I have always deprecated judicial overreach... I have always said judicial activism must remain, but it should not turn into judicial terrorism..," CJI BR Gavai said.

Supreme Court has also questioned whether withholding of bills by the Governor would leave the elected government at the whims and fancies of the Governor. In response, the Solicitor told court that once the Governor withholds a Bill, it falls through. "Governor is not just a postman..an individual who is not directly elected is no lesser than an individual who is directly elected..", the SG added.

During his submission, SG also told court that President of India Droupadi Murmu has sought the opinion on the court's order imposing timelines for deciding on bills on account of the genuine functional difficulties that have arisen for the President and the Governors across the country appointed by Her. Arguing that the reference is not a lis to be decided, SG Tushar Mehta had further told court yesterday that the questions under reference are precise, specific and seeks exercise of the plenary high constitutional power of the President invoking the advisory jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

At the beginning of the Constitution Bench hearing, the Supreme Court heard parties on maintainability of the special reference case taken up over the opinion sought by President Droupadi Murmu on its order imposing timelines for the exercise of discretion by the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution of India to decide on bills.

A five judge bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar had recently issued notice to the Union of India and all the state governments in a special reference case which was registered on July 19 by the court's own motion titled, "IN RE : ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA vs.".

In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor and the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion, President Murmu has asked by way of reference.

Case Title: In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India

Case Number: Special Reference Case No. 1 of 2025

Hearing Date: September 2, 2025

Bench: CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar