Justice Vikram Nath, sitting with Chief Justice Gavai along with Justice Surya Kant, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, interjected: “Yes, Bangladesh also.”
File Photo: ANI
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, citing the developments in the Himalayan state of Nepal, asserted that it is proud of the Indian Constitution, as the Centre, while asserting that the governor has discretion in dealing with the Bills presented to him for assent, said that the position of British Crown and the President of India is not comparable as the former is hereditary and later elected.
“We are proud of our Constitution. See what is happening in our neighbouring states… Nepal we saw,” said Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a five-judge Bench hearing the Presidential Reference on whether the court could mandate a timeframe for constitutional functionaries to decide on Bills presented for assent.
Advertisement
Justice Vikram Nath, sitting with Chief Justice Gavai along with Justice Surya Kant, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, interjected: “Yes, Bangladesh also.”
Advertisement
In the course of the hearing on Wednesday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in his rejoinder submissions, described as an “aberration” the conduct of governors in some Opposition-ruled states who had withheld assent to Bills for long durations. “Inaction in one or two States cannot lead to the conclusion of felt necessity, and the remedy is not to amend the Constitution by a judgment,” he argued.
He maintained that the governor’s role is part of a “collaborative exercise” in democracy. “If the Governor has no powers or discretion, then where comes the collaborative exercise? We may have Governors who had not acted as expected. But we have a strong democracy. There are political dialogues and political solutions. Not everything comes to this Court,” Mehta said.
Seeking to buttress his stand with figures, the Solicitor General Mehta said that since 1970, nearly 17,000 Bills had been presented before governors and only in 20 cases was assent withheld indefinitely. In 90 per cent of cases, assent came within a month; in some, within two or three months; and rarely beyond six months.
The Bench, however, objected. “This is not fair. We did not permit the other side (opposing the reference) to give empirical data; you too objected to it and now you are doing it. How is it relevant for answering the Presidential Reference? Why don’t you talk from 1950 till date,” it asked Mehta.
They further pressed him: “In how many cases have the Governors withheld assent indefinitely?”
Mehta said there were 20 such instances.
The Bench asked: “In how many cases has the Governor made a declaration that he would withhold the assent?”
Mehta reiterated that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a governor has four options—giving assent, returning the Bill to the legislature with a message, reserving it for the President’s consideration, or withholding it indefinitely. Referring to the oath of office taken both by the President and the Governors, he said that they 2were duty bound to uphold the constitution and the law.
Underlining the distinction between the President and the British Crown and both cannot be equated, the Solicitor General said, “What we borrowed from the UK is only the skeleton of parliamentary democracy. The President of India is elected, not hereditary like the British Crown.”
Rejecting the suggestion that Governors were merely titular heads, he said: “The Governor is not just a post office with a car with beacon and a big bungalow to live but has discretion in exercising powers.”
The matter will be heard further on Thursday, September 11.
The Presidential Reference, made on May 15, 2025, questions whether the judiciary exceeded its jurisdiction in prescribing timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills, and whether the concept of “deemed assent” undermines separation of powers.
The Union government has supported the Reference, contending that the Court’s intervention intruded into the legislative and the executive’s domain, a stand backed by several BJP-ruled states. Tamil Nadu and Kerala have opposed the maintainability of the Reference, with Kerala arguing that Article 143 permits advisory jurisdiction only on unsettled issues, while Articles 200 and 201 had already been interpreted by the Court.
Advertisement
