Presidential Reference| Office of Governor has sanctity, not an asylum for retired politicians, Supreme Court told
The Supreme Court has been told today that the office of the Governor is not an asylum for retired politicians and has its own sanctity. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta while making his submissions on the President's reference took court through the process of appointment of Governors as envisaged by the Constituent Assembly.
"What is the significance and sanctity attached to the office of the Governor, that we come to know from the constituent assembly debates..it is not an asylum for retired politicians..it has its own sanctity..", the Solicitor told a five-judge bench led by CJI Gavai.
Court was further told that framers of the Constitution debated on the need for a Governor, why he is to be given some powers. SG added that the Assembly examined that Centre will have to play a role in the governance of provinces and that is how the role of the Governor is fixed.
Quoting from the Constituent Assembly debate, the SG said, "Section 46 of the Government of India Act, 1915 is pari-materia to Article 155 of the present Constitution..initially the idea was that Governor should also be an elected person, but that idea was rejected by framers of the Constitution...".
Yesterday, court was told that President of India Droupadi Murmu has sought the opinion sought 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.
The President is said to have requested authoritative guidance on constitutional questions that either have arisen or are likely to arise across jurisdictions and the objection that the Reference “sits in appeal” is misconceived as advisory jurisdiction is being invoked strictly within its constitutional contours.
In its written submissions, Supreme Court of India has been told by the Central government that as timelines are conspicuously absent in Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution which deal with the exercise of discretion by the Governors and President to grant assent on Bills, any judicially imposed timeline would create an interpretative confusion and functional problem for constitutional functionaries.
"The powers under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, being high plenary constitutional functions, are not to be exercised mechanically but as a solemn constitutional responsibility....the absence of any express time limit in Articles 200 and 201 is a deliberate and conscious constitutional choice. The interpretation of these Articles must follow the plain meaning of the words therein and clear constitutional text reflecting demonstrative intent of its framers and therefore, cannot be strained to read in limitations which are not provided for. Importing timelines would negate their very purpose", the Centre has stated.
Yesterday, 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.
On 8th of April, the Supreme Court held that the scheme of Article 200 is characterized by the movement of the bill from one constitutional authority to another and that too with a sense of expediency and it is not open for the Governor to reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President once it is presented to him in the second round, after having been returned to the House previously as per the first proviso. The top court added that once a bill is returned to the Governor after reconsideration by the State legislature, it must be assented to without delay. The Governor cannot reserve such a bill for the President’s consideration, as per the constitutional scheme under Article 200.
In this backdrop, President Murmu has asked if in light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent or otherwise? “Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?”, the President has asked.
The Supreme Court’s decision of April 8th has also been questioned in view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India. The President has asked if is it not mandatory for any bench of the Supreme Court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges.
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: August 19, 2025
Bench: CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar