The Central government on Wednesday told a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that a Governor is not a mere “post office” and, in his “wisdom,” can withhold assent to a Bill, effectively rendering it inoperative, without returning it to the State legislature for reconsideration or reserving it for the President’s approval.
Arguing before a Bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor has powers beyond giving assent, sending a Bill back for reconsideration, or reserving it for the President. He stressed that the Governor may, in certain cases, indefinitely withhold assent, preventing the legislature from re-enacting it.
The Solicitor General maintained that such withholding could be exercised in rarest-of-rare circumstances, such as when a Bill exceeds legislative competence, threatens national security, violates fundamental rights, or encroaches upon another State’s rights. He cited examples, including a legislature attempting to abolish reservations, restrict entry of outsiders as during the COVID-19 pandemic, mandate use of a single language, or disenfranchise citizens on the basis of sex or race.
Expressing concern, Chief Justice Gavai observed: “Are we not giving total powers to the Governor? The government elected by majority will be at the whims of the Governor.”
The Solicitor General, however, argued that the Governor is not a mere conduit but a constitutional authority appointed by the President, representing the will of the people, albeit indirectly through elected representatives in Parliament and State legislatures.
Justice Surya Kant, focusing on the core issue, remarked: “Possibly there can’t be a serious dispute on the options—assent, withhold, send to the President, or return. The central point of debate is, what does ‘withhold’ mean? Does it imply reconsideration or return? And how much time should this process take?”
On timelines, Mehta questioned the April 8 judgment concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor, which required Governors to act “as soon as possible.” He argued that Article 200 uses this phrase only in the context of returning a Bill for reconsideration, not for withholding, assent, or referral to the President—indicating that no constitutional time limit was intended.
The Solicitor General will continue his arguments on Thursday, August 21.
The Constitution Bench is examining a Presidential Reference made on May 15, 2025, questioning whether the judiciary exceeded its jurisdiction by prescribing timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by State legislatures, and whether the concept of “deemed assent” violates the separation of powers.
The States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala have challenged the maintainability of the Reference, arguing that Article 143 allows such referrals only if the legal issue is unsettled. Kerala contended that constitutional questions relating to Articles 200 and 201 have already been adjudicated by the Court.
ENDS