Supreme Court Limits Role to Constitutional Interpretation in Presidential Reference on Governor Timelines

The Supreme Court of India clarified on Tuesday that its role is confined to interpreting the Constitution, specifically regarding the Presidential reference concerning whether the judiciary can impose timelines on governors and the President for addressing bills passed by state assemblies.

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai made this assertion in the face of a request from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to respond to arguments presented by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who represents parties opposing the reference. Mehta expressed that if Singhvi planned to cite examples from Andhra Pradesh or other states, a detailed reply was needed as those points hadn’t been elaborated in earlier arguments.

Mehta emphasized the need to address how the Constitution has been interpreted over the years, but CJI Gavai clarified that the bench would not delve into specific instances involving states like Andhra Pradesh or Karnataka. Instead, the focus would remain strictly on constitutional interpretation.

On the sixth day of hearings concerning the Presidential reference, Singhvi elaborated on scenarios where a bill could "fall through." For instance, if a state assembly decides not to pass a bill returned to it by the governor or changes its policy, the bill "naturally falls through," Singhvi explained.

CJI Gavai inquired about situations where a governor withholds a bill and does not return it to the assembly. Singhvi responded, indicating that previous judgments suggested the bill would lapse unless the governor complies with the first proviso of Article 200, which requires the bill to be returned to the assembly for reconsideration.

On August 28, the Supreme Court remarked on the phrase 'as soon as possible' in Article 200, noting that it would lose meaning if governors could indefinitely delay assent to bills. The court addressed this after the Centre argued that states cannot pursue writ jurisdiction against the actions of governors or the President, claiming such actions infringe on fundamental rights.

Article 200 outlines the powers of a governor concerning bills, including giving assent, withholding assent, returning the bill, or reserving it for presidential consideration. Its proviso mandates that a governor must send a non-Money Bill back to the assembly for reconsideration and cannot withhold consent once the assembly returns it.

Earlier, on August 26, the court considered if it can intervene if governors delay assent indefinitely and whether the autonomy in withholding assent could affect even Money Bills. Several BJP-led states argued in favor of preserving the independent discretion of governors and the President, suggesting that judicial intervention in legislative processes is not appropriate.

In May, President Droupadi Murmu used Article 143(1) to ask the Supreme Court whether it is appropriate for judicial orders to stipulate timelines for the President's discretion concerning state assembly bills.