The Bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, repeatedly examined whether prolonged inaction was consistent with the Constitution’s use of the phrase “as soon as possible,” with the Chief Justice observing that the Constituent Assembly had understood it to mean “immediately.”
Published Aug 28, 2025 | 6:15 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 28, 2025 | 6:15 PM
Supreme Court (iStock)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court on Thursday resumed hearings on the presidential reference seeking clarity on the time limits within which the President and state Governors must decide on Bills. The Centre, argued that constitutional heads cannot be compelled by courts to act within fixed timelines and that a state government cannot invoke Article 32 in such cases, while opposing counsel maintained that Governors and the President are bound by the advice of the council of ministers and cannot let Bills lapse by inaction.
The Supreme Court on Thursday, August 28, resumed hearings in the presidential reference case concerning the timelines within which the President and state Governors must decide on Bills cleared by state legislatures.
While the Centre argued that courts cannot compel constitutional heads to act within a fixed timeframe, counsel for the petitioners opposing the reference said such delays go against responsible government and the vision of the Constitution’s framers, Bar and Bench reported.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, repeatedly examined whether prolonged inaction was consistent with the Constitution’s use of the phrase “as soon as possible,” with the Chief Justice observing that the Constituent Assembly had understood it to mean “immediately.”
The matter originated from a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, challenging state Governor RN Ravi’s delay in approving Bills passed by the legislature.
Earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that Governors and the President must act on Bills within three months. That judgment prompted the President to seek clarification through a letter to the Chief Justice of India.
The hearing will continue on September 2.
Opening submissions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the April ruling required reconsideration.
“I had to take instructions on two questions…Whether writ will lie on behalf of state govt and then on the ambit of Article 361. The president says she would require assistance of your Lordships. This has to be answered else the questions will keep arising,” he said.
“Lordships never issue a mandamus to the Governor. Court cannot say ‘President decide in three months’ and if not give reasons. And then telling state that if not come to us. Article 32 does not lie, it is not justiciable and mandamus cannot be issued.”
The Solicitor General stressed that a state government could not invoke Article 32 in such cases.
“The state government is the repository of functions to protect the fundamental right of citizens. It cannot file an Article 32 plea by itself,” he argued, citing precedent where a similar petition from Karnataka had not been entertained.
He warned of wider consequences if such writs were admitted:
“Suppose there is law and order situation in some state and local police is not able to contain the same.. can the central government file a plea seeking deployment of paramilitary forces? To me the answer is a No.”
The Solicitor General also questioned whether assent itself could be subject to judicial review: “If assent is granted.. can someone challenge the same and can direct that assent be taken away?”
Chief Justice Gavai intervened, pointing to the design of Article 200. “The word used was as soon as possible. Earlier it was six weeks and later made as soon as possible. One of the members in the drafting committee stated ‘as soon as possible’ meant immediately. If this was the frame of constitution makers can we ignore that?”
Solicitor General Mehta responded by highlighting constitutional protections for high offices. “This court has held that this court will not issue mandamus to frame a law or implement a law. Article 361 becomes nugatory if this court accepts the power of the state government to file a writ.”
On the functioning of Governors, he said: “We are on a constitutional scheme. What is envisaged is that there will be a person who will look at national policy vis-à-vis state policy. If this logic is used even CAG is appointed by the president.”
He cautioned against narrow readings of gubernatorial roles. “Multitude of considerations go while deciding to assent a bill or not. Like if assembly passes a bill that only one language be used and no other.. it may be under list 2, but waiting for a year in such situations may prove beneficial.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the opposing parties, argued that Governors and the President have no independent discretion in legislative assent.
“Government and President are titular heads with no discretion for executive decision making save and except a very few ones. There is strong material to show that in each of three options in Article 200 the governor is bound by council of ministers,” Singhvi said.
He stressed that Governors could not let Bills lapse by inaction.
“The governor in any event has three options and if he chooses not to assent to the bill, can either return the bill or send it to President. Next there is no option to fail the bill or make it fall through.. such a reading negates Article 200.”
Criticising the Centre’s hypotheticals, he said:
“Mr Mehta’s submissions say that a governor may hold a bill back for some reasons.. nine doomsday scenarios have been given. Hypothetically the sky may fall on our head. Such examples have not happened in 75 years. So all this is very imaginary. Imagination is very fertile.”
Citing the Shamsher Singh and Nabam Rebia rulings, Singhvi reiterated: “Governor may have a role but on the aid and advice of council of ministers. The submission is being made to portray the governor as a super chief minister. The concept of broad discretion will only create chaos.”
Addressing judicial concerns on constitutionality, Justice Narasimha asked: “When the council of ministers insist on assent.. and the bill is impinging on constitutional provisions. Are you saying no such option for him but to grant assent?”
“Yes,” Singhvi replied, “Constitutional scheme will not change.. he has to assent. The law if bad will be challenged in court and struck down. He is not the judge.”
On the interpretation of “withhold” powers, Singhvi added: “Withholding must lead to returning. You can return only when you withhold. A separate dichotomy has been created in this regard. The middle option … does not mean that withhold always and you go to sleep.”
Chief Justice Gavai agreed: “Yes then withhold till eternity and words as soon as possible will go on till eternity.”
“Can you return a bill which is assented to? What kind of interpretation being given and dichotomy is being created when there is none,” Singhvi pressed, adding: “Withhold assent is the focus of the proviso. There is no question that it is meaningless.”
Responding to Justice Nath’s observation that “the word may has been used there.. not shall,” Singhvi said: “May is not used for this.. it is used for the other part. If the proviso is applied and read to me… The reason he may send it back is for assembly to reconsider or send it to President but not to withhold forever.”
Emphasising legislative primacy, Singhvi concluded: “The proviso was created for governor to grant assent if the legislature sends back the bill.”
Chief Justice Gavai observed that while the legislature cannot allow a Bill to lapse through inaction, “the governor cannot do that.”
At this point, Justice Narasimha clarified: “‘Fall through’.. the bill will lapse. Fall through is not the correct expression.”
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
