The Supreme court asked, "Suppose a bill is passed in 2020... Will the court be powerless if there is no consent even in 2025?"
Published Aug 26, 2025 | 8:12 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 26, 2025 | 8:12 PM
Supreme Court. (iStock)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court, further expressing concerns at the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution that Governors have an independent power to withhold a Bill, without returning it to the State Legislative Assembly, said, “If such an interpretation is accepted, it would mean that Governors can even withhold money bills, which they are otherwise bound to approve, the Court orally remarked. The Court remarked that such a situation is ‘problematic’.”
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 26 August, while hearing a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu to the top court under Article 143 of the Constitution, expressed concerns over whether it is expected to hold off on taking any action if the President of India or State Governors indefinitely withhold granting assent to Bills passed by elected State Legislatures for years.
The Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar heard the issue.
According to The Hindu, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, concluded his arguments during the hearing on 21 August.
Meanwhile, counsels representing States ruled by NDA, including Maharashtra, Goa, Haryana, Chhattisgarh and Puducherry, argued that prescribing a timeline for President and Governors to decide on the Bills passed by legislatures was against the spirit of discretionary powers given to the constitutional authority.
The case has been posted to 28 August, when the opposing parties are expected to present their arguments.
According to Bar and Bench, the court asked, “Suppose a bill is passed in 2020… Will the court be powerless if there is no consent even in 2025?”
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the State of Madhya Pradesh, on Tuesday, noted that, “As far as timelines are concerned, it is impossible to say within this time the Governor or President must decided.”
He further added, “Where there are no justiciable standards for a certain action, it will not be susceptible to judicial process. No one is saying power of judicial review is not implicit but there will be certain powers which will not have justiciability aligned to them.”
The Bar and Bench further reported that the Chief Justice Gavai asked that why the Governor should be permitted to sit on a bill for an indefinite period of time when two houses of a State legislature have passed it.
In response, Kaul said it was best to leave the issue to be decided by the parliament.
The Livelaw reported, that the Supreme Court, further expressing concerns at the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution that Governors have an independent power to withhold a Bill, without returning it to the State Legislative Assembly, said, “If such an interpretation is accepted, it would mean that Governors can even withhold money bills, which they are otherwise bound to approve, the Court orally remarked. The Court remarked that such a situation is ‘problematic’.”
Justice Narasimha said : “The Union says the power of withholding stands on its own and the Governor can withhold the Bill. Therefore, when you independently exercise the power of withholding, it is a little problematic.”
“Because, at the threshold, the Governor withholds the Bill. There is a problem because with this power, even a money bill can be withheld. The proviso will not apply there. There is a big problem with that interpretation. Assuming for a minute that it is permissible, even at the threshold, a Bill can be withheld,…”
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, argued that the framers of the Constitution have created a system in which the Union government can prevent a bill passed by a State assembly from becoming a law. However, he said it is a matter of higher discretion.
To which, Chief Justice Gavai asked whether the Union government can use such a power even when the bill falls under List 2 (State List). Salve responded in the affirmative.
CJI Gavai, however, referred to BR Ambedkar’s speech in which he had said that the Union government would work within the spheres allotted to it, except in case of an emergency.
President Droupadi Murmu on 13 May, formally sought clarity from the Supreme Court on 14 vital constitutional questions.
The questions were raised in the wake of the landmark judgement by the apex court concerning the roles and powers of Governors and the President in relation to state legislation under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
In the case involving the Tamil Nadu government’s petition against the state Governor for inaction on 10 bills passed by the state Assembly, heard by a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, resulted in a detailed verdict sharply criticising the Governor’s actions and setting strict timelines for decision-making.
The President posed the following questions for the Supreme Court regarding the judgement.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
