Presidential Reference on Timelines for Bill Assent: Supreme Court reserves verdict

The Supreme Court's five judge bench has today reserved verdict in a special reference case which was registered on July 19 by the court's own motion after President Droupadi Murmu has framed 14 questions seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court on issues regarding grant of assent on Bills by the President of India and Governors of states.

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 on July 22 issued notice to the Union of India and all the state governments in a special reference case which was registered by the court's own motion titled, "IN RE : ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA vs.".

The CJI BR Gavai led bench heard the Centre and various state governments for 10 days spanning over the last four weeks starting from August 19. 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.

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.

The reference arose due to a decision dating 8th of April, wherein 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 further 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.

In its written submissions, Supreme Court of India was 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 stated.

Supreme Court was told 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. 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.

Central Government also argued that there were political solutions that can be adopted to resolve the dispute when a Governor is sitting on a Bill. "Such solutions are taking place and it is not everywhere that state is advised to rush to the Supreme Court.. The Chief Minister goes and requests the Prime Minister..the Chief Minister goes and meets the President..there are delegations which go and say please talk to the Governor and let him take decision one way or another....telephonically they are sorted out..," SG had submitted.

During one of the hearings, Supreme Court 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.

Centre also told 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 before Court, the distinction between judicial review and justiciability was relied upon. Question of justiciability is a self-imposed limitation exercised as a matter of caution and judicial statesmanship, especially while dealing with co-ordinate constitutional authorities and organs, the apex court was told.

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

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