Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Union government has told the Supreme Court that governors cannot be treated as “aliens” or “foreigners” on whom timelines may be imposed and whose discretion does not count, insisting that the judiciary’s intervention in the assent process risks “constitutional chaos”. According to The Hindu, the Union government said a governor is not a mere “post office” but a check on “hasty legislation” by states.
The submissions, authored by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, form part of the record in a Presidential reference listed before a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai from August 19. The reference stems from an April 8 judgement by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on a petition by the Tamil Nadu government, which challenged Governor RN Ravi’s delay in clearing 10 re-passed bills and his subsequent decision to reserve them for the president’s consideration.
The April ruling regulated the assent process and fixed deadlines while also invoking Article 142 to grant “deemed assent” to delayed bills. The Bench had prescribed one month for governors and three months for the president to decide on bills. The judgement also directed the president to seek the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 in case of vexing state bills. President Droupadi Murmu has since, under Article 143, posed 14 questions on the powers of the president and governors under Articles 200 and 201. A Bench led by CJI Gavai in July set a schedule and asked the Union government and states to file written submissions by August 12.
Challenging the April ruling, the Union government argued that the judgement “trenched upon a zone exclusive to the president and the governors”. Mehta submitted, “Governors are not to be treated as aliens/foreigners in the federating units of the Union. Governors are not just emissaries of the Centre. The Governors possess democratic legitimacy through indirect democratic representation… Governors are constitutional actors.” He underscored the “duality” of gubernatorial assent – executive authority performing a legislative act – contending that the court’s approach “ought to have been more calibrated”.
On timelines, the government said the Constitution consciously refrains from fixing any in Articles 200 and 201. Mehta emphasised, “The absence of any express time limit in Articles 200 and 201 is a deliberate and conscious constitutional choice. The judicial direction of imposition of any timeline would amount to an amendment to the Constitution.”
According to reports, the Union government added: “When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits… it specifically mentions such time limits… Since the text of Art 200 or 201 does not provide a specific time limit, no form of judicial review or judicial interpretation can impose the same.”
Objecting to the grant of “deemed assent” under Article 142, the Union government said the court cannot assume powers the Constitution has not vested in it. The note also asked whether the court could invoke Article 142 to assume powers under Articles 200 and 201 and stated, “The alleged failure, inaction, or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of ‘deemed assent’, turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head.”
The Union government further claimed that such an approach would “create an institutional hierarchy and upset the constitutional balance of powers” and that “exercising judicial powers over decisions of the President and governors… would confer supremacy on the judiciary, which is against the Constitution’s basic structure.”
The Union government also argued that governors retain discretion under Article 200 to assent, withhold assent, reserve a bill for the president’s consideration, or return it to the Assembly, even without matching “aid and advice”. Mehta said, “The governor’s assent cannot be a mechanical process… Situations may arise where the governor may need to take a view independently of the Council of Ministers.”
He further contended that directing the president to consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 would convert a constitutional prerogative into a judicial mandate: “An absolute discretion lies with the President to seek advice. The term ‘consult’ means the president is not bound to do so.”
Tamil Nadu opposed the Reference. Senior advocate P Wilson, for the state, submitted that the Presidential Reference mechanism cannot be used to reopen or nullify binding Supreme Court judgements; that the April 8 judgement had already settled the questions on presidential and gubernatorial powers over state bills; and that entertaining the Reference would erode the finality attached to the court’s judgements under Article 141.
The government warned that fixed timelines imposed by the judiciary would lead to “constitutional chaos”, arguing that the offices of the governor and president are “politically complete” and represent “higher ideals of democratic governance”, and that any alleged lapses should be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms rather than “unwarranted judicial” intervention.