Governor cannot be constitutional filter and check validity of laws: Punjab submits before SC

The Punjab government has told the Supreme Court that a Governor cannot act as a constitutional filter by taking upon himself to decide on the validity of law while his assent on the same is asked for.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the state of Punjab, further told a five judge bench hearing the Presidential reference on setting of timelines that laying down timelines was a part of the concept of constitutional trust.

Datar further told court that Governor cannot decide on validity of a Bill. "Governor can say rethink", Datar submitted on the legislature being asked to have a relook at the proposed legislation.

Apart from Punjab, the West Bengal government has told the Supreme Court on September 2, 2025 that repeated withholding of assent by a Governor on bills would render the Constitution unworkable. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state, submitted before the Constitution Bench that if a Governor continues to withhold assent even after a bill is repassed by the assembly, the constitutional framework itself would collapse.

Sibal submitted that the Constitution is a living document rooted in history but aligned with the future, and that the role of the Court is to ensure its future relevance. He argued that if timelines are not prescribed, it must at least be said that once a bill is repassed by the assembly, assent cannot be withheld again. Drawing an analogy, he told the bench that just as a home cannot function without marital accord, legislatures and institutions cannot work under conditions of discord, and the Court must ensure no area of discord exists between the legislature and the Governor.

West Bengal in its submissions also told the five-judge bench that through this Presidential Reference, the Court would be deciding the future of the country in relation to the powers of Governors. He told the bench, “The Constitution is rooted in history but aligned with the future, and you five will decide the future of this country in relation to the powers of the Governor.”

The state of Tamil Nadu also addressed the bench, submitting that a Governor is not the final arbiter or a “super chief minister.” Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, argued that a Governor cannot withhold assent to kill a bill. He told the bench that even if unconstitutional bills are passed every day, courts will decide their validity, which is part of the doctrine of separation of powers.

The central government, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, submitted that issues closely linked with high policy or political discretion should be treated as non-justiciable. An additional note filed by the Union stressed that judicial review must be distinguished from justiciability, as some questions require policy choices beyond judicial standards.

The Court was also informed that the President of India had sought assistance on whether states could file writ petitions under Article 32 against Governors or the President over pending bills, given that Article 361 grants them protection from being answerable to any court for the exercise of their powers and duties.

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.

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 9, 2025

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