Opposition‐ruled states Karnataka, Punjab, Kerala and Telangana appeared before the Supreme Court on Tuesday insisting the Constitution does not permit the President or state governors to stall legislation passed by their assemblies, even if such bills are challenged as unconstitutional or inconsistent with central law.
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, for Karnataka, argued that bills passed by legislatures represent the people’s will and that any power to withhold assent beyond returning a bill for reconsideration would amount to a veto power that undermines democratic representation. Karnataka, Punjab, Kerala and Telangana maintain that once a bill is re-passed by a legislature, with or without amendments, the governor must grant assent, and cannot delay or refuse it.
The arguments were made in the context of a Presidential Reference sent by the President in May, seeking clarity on whether there can be constitutionally fixed timelines for assent by governors and the President, and whether omission of action constitutes discretion. Kerala’s counsel, K. K. Venugopal, emphasised the duty of the governor to act “forthwith” when a bill is presented, including money bills, stressing there should be no prolonged withholding of assent. Telangana’s legal team submitted written arguments that withholding assent subverts the legislature’s will and is inconsistent with Articles 200 and 201, also calling for judicial enforceability of time periods to prevent a so-called pocket veto.
The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P. S. Narasimha and A. S. Chandurkar, expressed concern about setting strict timelines, suggesting risks in judicially policing legislative and executive functions. The bench flagged that emergencies or extraordinary situations could make fixed deadlines impractical.
The debate follows the Supreme Court’s judgment of 8 April in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, which held that governors cannot exercise absolute or pocket veto over bills, and laid down procedural safeguards under Article 200 to prevent undue delays in giving assent. That judgment is now central to how states are arguing their case in this reference.
States opposing the Presidential Reference argue that the scheme under Article 200 provides no residual discretion for governors to indefinitely delay bills after legislative action. According to them, only limited and specified avenues of discretion remain, and fixed timelines must be read into constitutional provisions to safeguard legislative supremacy.
BJP Strategy Meeting Fuels Talks of State Government Return 