Was there a mention of Hitler before SC during Presidential Reference hearing?

During the Presidential Reference hearing today, the Supreme Court's five-judge Constitution bench was told that the makers of the Constitution of India did not wish for it to be governed by someone Hitler-like.

CJI Gavai led bench of the Supreme Court was told that under Article 361 of the Constitution, the courts have been given power to correct a constitutional wrong.

"Our constitutional makers never wanted India to be governed by a dictator or a Hitler type of a person....our constitutional makers had seen the second world war and had also seen the devastating effects of that..Hitler was also the reason for that war..", a counsel submitted before court while making submission on behalf of an intervenor.

Is there any reference in the constituent assembly debates with regard to Hitler, CJI Gavai asked. "Is there any debate?", the Chief Justice of India further questioned the counsel.

Court was then told that Hitler was not a dictator at the beginning, but he used the constitutional powers to become a dictator in Germany. "Constitutional framers also have a fear if an elected person in our democracy can become a dictator...that was a question also in their minds..", court was further told.

At this juncture Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that he was internally discussing with the Attorney General that this was the first time that the name of Hitler was being taken during a constitutional discussion.

The Supreme Court has been hearing various states on the reference made by President on India. The Karnataka government on September 9 told a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court hearing the Presidential Reference that a Governor cannot consider himself to be an all-pervading authority. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for the State of Karnataka, submitted President and the Governor are "titular heads" and they exercise their powers on aid and advice of the cabinet.

Yesterday, the Punjab government also 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.

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.

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.

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 10, 2025

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