The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised concerns over whether Governors and the President can indefinitely withhold their assent to Bills passed by State legislatures, effectively stalling the legislative process.
The issue arose during the hearing of a Presidential Reference on whether the judiciary can prescribe timelines for the President and Governors to act on State Bills.
The five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, questioned if the Court should remain passive when Bills languish for months with the Governor or the President without any decision.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the Maharashtra government, argued that once a Bill is presented for assent, the Governor’s actions are beyond judicial review.
“The Governor is beyond the pale of judicial review. No mandamus can be issued to him. The Court can only ask what he did, not why he did it,” Salve submitted. He maintained that, unlike in the U.S. and other countries, Indian federalism is “limited,” giving the Centre an overriding role.
Describing the use of the word “veto” for the Governor’s decision to withhold assent as “uncharitable,” Salve contended that such deadlocks should be resolved through political consultation and consensus-building, not judicial intervention.
However, the Bench appeared unconvinced. Chief Justice Gavai questioned the sanctity of the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List if Governors could act without accountability. Justice Narasimha noted that if a Governor can withhold a Bill at the threshold, “then he can also block a Money Bill.”
Salve acknowledged the theoretical possibility but said it was unlikely, as Money Bills are introduced in the State Assembly only on the Governor’s recommendation. Yet, he conceded that if amendments were made during passage, the Governor could still withhold assent.
The hearing also examined Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s assurance in the Constituent Assembly that the Union and States would work within their assigned spheres, with the Centre intervening only during emergencies. Salve further distinguished between the President—bound by the Union Cabinet’s advice—and Governors, who enjoy independent discretion under Article 200.
The Presidential Reference, made on May 15, 2025, asks whether the Supreme Court overstepped its jurisdiction by imposing timelines on constitutional authorities. The Union government has defended the Reference, arguing that judicial directions intrude into executive functions.
The governments of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, however, challenged the maintainability of the Reference, contending that issues concerning Articles 200 and 201 have already been settled. Kerala argued that under Article 143, the President can seek the Court’s advisory opinion only on questions that remain unsettled in law.