Centre Argues States Cannot Approach SC Over Governors’ Delay in Bill Assent

The ongoing constitutional debate on the powers of governors and the President regarding pending state bills took a sharp turn as the Union government argued before the Supreme Court that states have no legal right to approach the top court under Article 32 to allege violation of their rights due to delayed or withheld assent.

This submission came during the hearing of President Droupadi Murmu’s Article 143 reference in May, which seeks clarity on the April 8 Supreme Court ruling that prescribed timelines for the President and governors to act on pending bills.

---

Key Arguments from the Union Government

Appearing before a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta asserted that:

1. States Cannot Claim Fundamental Rights

   • The Constitution confers fundamental rights on citizens and individuals, not governments.

   • A state is “the State” as defined under Article 12 and is a repository of duties, not a holder of rights.

   • Therefore, a state cannot maintain a petition under Article 32 alleging infringement of rights it does not possess.

2. Mandamus Against Governors/President is Non-Justiciable

   • Decisions on assent, withholding, or returning bills form part of the legislative process entrusted to constitutional heads.

   • Such actions are protected by Article 361, which grants immunity to the President and governors from judicial proceedings for the exercise of their powers.

   • Mehta argued that courts cannot direct the President or governors to act within fixed timelines through a writ of mandamus.

3. Resolution Through Article 131

   • Disputes between the Union and states should be addressed under Article 131 (original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court) rather than invoking fundamental rights enforcement under Article 32.

---

Bench Questions and Constitutional Concerns

The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar, questioned whether constitutional authorities could sit indefinitely on bills.

• Interpretation of “As Soon As Possible”
  The judges referred to Constituent Assembly debates, which originally considered a six-week limit for gubernatorial assent but ultimately replaced it with “as soon as possible,” reflecting an expectation of urgency and responsibility.

• Judicial Scrutiny of Inaction
  The bench suggested that inordinate delays—ranging from six months to a year—could warrant judicial scrutiny to ensure constitutional propriety.

---

Historical Context and Tamil Nadu Case

The ongoing debate stems from the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 judgment in a Tamil Nadu case, where the court:

• Set Timelines: Directed governors to act on bills within one month and the President to decide within three months.

• Deemed Assent: Exercised Article 142 powers to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented due to prolonged gubernatorial inaction.

This unprecedented move prompted the Article 143 reference by the President, asking the Supreme Court to clarify whether judiciary-imposed timelines violate constitutional principles.

---

Counter-Arguments from States

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing certain states, countered the Centre’s stance:

• The governor is a titular head, bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers, with limited exceptions.

• Withholding Assent is Not Absolute: “Withholding must lead to returning; permanent withholding would make a mockery of the Constitution.”

• Singhvi argued that allowing indefinite delays would effectively make a governor “superior to elected governments”, which contradicts constitutional democracy.

He also emphasized that if a bill is unconstitutional, courts—not governors—are responsible for striking it down.

---

Constitutional Provisions at Play

1. Article 143 – Presidential Reference: Enables the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or constitutional interpretation.

2. Article 32 – Enforcement of Fundamental Rights: Allows citizens, not states, to approach the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights.

3. Article 131 – Original Jurisdiction: Governs legal disputes between the Union and states.

4. Article 361 – Immunities of Constitutional Heads: Shields the President and governors from judicial proceedings for acts performed in their official capacity.

---

Implications of the Debate

This constitutional tussle has significant implications:

• It could redefine the balance of power between elected governments and constitutional heads.

• The ruling may determine whether the judiciary can hold governors and the President accountable for inordinate delays in legislative processes.

• A verdict upholding judicial scrutiny could act as a check against misuse of discretion and ensure smoother state-centre relations.

---

Conclusion

The Supreme Court is navigating a delicate constitutional question: Can the judiciary compel constitutional authorities to act promptly when the Constitution itself is silent?

The answer will not only clarify the roles of governors and the President but also redefine federalism and democratic accountability in India. The arguments are set to continue next week, and the judgment is expected to have far-reaching consequences for India’s legislative process.

---