The Supreme Court constitution bench has reserved its decision on the reference submitted by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution. The reference seeks clarity on whether Governors—and the President—can be subject to timelines when deciding whether to grant assent to Bills passed by state legislatures. Chief Justice B. R. Gavai led the five-judge bench that concluded oral arguments after ten days of hearings.
The background to this case stems from the April judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. where a two-judge bench held that Governors must act within a “reasonable time” and that constitutional silence cannot delay legislative processes. In particular, the court ruled that when a Bill is re-passed by a State legislature, the Governor must grant assent within one month; for other actions like withholding or reserving Bills for the President’s consideration, a three-month time limit was imposed.
President Murmu’s reference raises fourteen legal questions centred on whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 200, whether Article 200 and Article 201 actions are justiciable, and whether judicially imposed timelines infringe upon the constitutionally granted discretion of these offices.
During the closing arguments, Chief Justice Gavai emphasised the tension between constitutional checks and judicial restraint, asking: “if one wing of democracy fails in discharging its duties, would the Court … be powerless and sit idle?” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre submitted that issuing mandamus against a coordinate constitutional organ when discretion and non-specified constitutional time limits are involved would violate the separation of powers doctrine.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that Article 200 envisages independent evaluation by the Governor and that courts should refrain from altering the structural design of the Constitution by overprescribing timelines. He contended that judicial review may be permissible for instances of malafide or arbitrary withholding but that discretion, where provided, ought to be respected.
Several States including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh, Telangana, and Punjab intervened in the case, opposing modifications to the April judgment. They argued that rigid timelines or judicial mandates might undermine the federal balance and constitutional autonomy of Governor’s functions.
Gandhi Flees to Langkawi Amid Bihar Campaign Heat 