The Union government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that some states, including Tamil Nadu, Punjab and West Bengal, were effectively seeking to reduce governors to “mute spectators” and “glorified rubber stamps” who must compulsorily grant assent to all bills passed by state legislatures, stripping them of any discretion or constitutional role.
Appearing before a constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued that the positions taken by these states would make governors’ assent “a mere formality” and deprive them of their constitutional duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
“If the governor’s role is restricted as argued, he will not be able to do anything even if a bill is downright unconstitutional. The governor, who takes an oath under Article 159 to defend the Constitution, would be left powerless,” Mehta submitted.
The SG emphasised that the debate over gubernatorial powers cannot be divorced from the text of the Constitution. Under Article 200, he pointed out, a governor has four distinct choices when a bill is presented -- to assent, to withhold assent, to reserve it for the President’s consideration, or to return it with a message to the state assembly.
“The parties opposing the reference are seeking an interpretation that renders the governor rudderless…this makes the power/function of assent a mere formality and renders the options therein and the choices therein, a vestige of the Council of Ministers, who would always exercise only one option- assent…This is not cooperative federalism. It is unilateralism, where the council of ministers’ view alone prevails and the Governor is left without any constitutional agency,” he said.
{{/usCountry}}“The parties opposing the reference are seeking an interpretation that renders the governor rudderless…this makes the power/function of assent a mere formality and renders the options therein and the choices therein, a vestige of the Council of Ministers, who would always exercise only one option- assent…This is not cooperative federalism. It is unilateralism, where the council of ministers’ view alone prevails and the Governor is left without any constitutional agency,” he said.
{{/usCountry}}The bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, is hearing a presidential reference sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May, questioning the correctness of the top court’s April ruling that imposed a one-month deadline on governors to act on re-enacted bills and a three-month deadline on the President to take a decision. The April ruling triggered debate over whether judicially imposed timelines altered the constitutional scheme, since Articles 200 and 201 are silent on time limits.
Countering the argument that governors’ discretion to withhold assent is only temporary, Mehta maintained that “withhold” cannot be read down to mean mere deferment until the bill is returned. “Such a construction makes the word ‘withhold’ wholly illusory and meaningless,” said the SG, warning that the Court could not rewrite the Constitution under the guise of interpretation.
“Interpretation is a judicial function, amendment is a constituent function entrusted only to Parliament under Article 368. Any attempt to expand meaning beyond text confers upon the judiciary a power equal to Parliament, which the framers never envisaged,” he added.
Mehta also stressed the constitutional balance underlying the governor’s position. While bound by ministerial advice in the ordinary course, he said, a governor is also a constitutional guardian, a link between the Union and the state, and in some circumstances, a neutral arbiter. “He is not an employee of the Union government, nor an agent of the party in power. His peculiar position flows from India’s quasi-federal Constitution,” he said.
Responding to concerns over delays in granting assent to state bills, Mehta contended that between 1970 and 2025, governors have withheld only 20 out of nearly 17,000 bills. This, he said, belied the states’ argument that timelines were an urgent “felt necessity”.
However, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu and West Bengal respectively, objected to the SG’s reliance on statistics, pointing out that he had earlier opposed their attempt to submit data.
Agreeing with them, the bench told Mehta: “We cannot take the data...it will not be fair to them. We will not go into it. Then we have to unnecessarily go into data...earlier you objected to their data.”
The bench also questioned the relevance of such figures since it was concerned about the constitutional issues involved in the matter. The bench observed: “The nation is continuing with the Constitution and democracy for 75 years irrespective whether 50 % bills have been held or 90% bills have been withheld.”
It further remarked: “We are proud of our Constitution. Look what is happening in neighboring states, like what happened in Nepal only two days ago, or what happened in Bangladesh in recent years.”
On his part, the solicitor general cautioned against judicially mandated deadlines. “If a mandamus is issued by this Court directing the Governor to grant assent within a set timeframe, it would amount to ordering him to exercise his discretion in a particular manner. That is impermissible,” he said.
The hearing will continue on Thursday when the bench is expected to reserve the matter for judgment.
The presidential reference has placed 14 questions before the court. Among them are whether the Supreme Court can judicially craft procedural mechanisms in areas where the Constitution is silent, and whether fixing timelines for constitutional authorities amounts to encroaching upon discretion vested in them by the framers.
In the April ruling, the two-judge bench fixed a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor’s prolonged inaction was “illegal”.
Ends