A day ahead of a crucial Supreme Court hearing on the Presidential reference concerning the powers of Governors and the President in granting assent to state legislation, the Central Government has submitted a detailed affidavit defending the autonomy and plenary nature of these constitutional roles.

The matter will be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Tuesday. The bench, which includes Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, will consider 14 constitutional questions referred by the President under Article 143. These questions stem from an earlier Supreme Court ruling in April related to delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor in acting on state bills.

In its written submission to the court, filed through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Union Government argues that any attempt by the judiciary to impose timelines on constitutional authorities such as the Governor and the President would “disturb the delicate separation of powers” and trigger “constitutional chaos.”

The Centre emphasised that:

• The Indian Constitution recognises co-equality of the legislature, executive, and judiciary, maintained through a system of checks and balances.
• Articles 200 and 201, which govern the powers of Governors with respect to bills, do not prescribe any time limits, a deliberate choice by the Constitution’s framers.
• The Governor’s power under Article 200 is plenary and beyond judicial review.
• Courts cannot use Article 142 to override explicit constitutional provisions or alter the structure created by the Constitution.

The affidavit firmly states that any such judicial intervention would result in one organ “usurping powers not vested in it,” going beyond its jurisdiction.

The issue originates from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government, where the Supreme Court had, in April 2025, held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay bills passed by state legislatures. The judgment prompted the President to seek constitutional clarity under Article 143, posing 14 questions on the limits and obligations of the Governor and President regarding bill assent.

These include:

• Whether the Governor is bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers?
• Whether the Supreme Court can prescribe a timeline for Governors or the President to act on bills?
• Can a Presidential reference reopen matters already settled by the Supreme Court?

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT OPPOSES REFERENCE

In its response, the Tamil Nadu government has contended that the Presidential reference is unnecessary and should be rejected. It argues that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in the Tamil Nadu v. Governor case already settled these issues. According to Tamil Nadu:

Article 143 cannot be used to review or nullify decisions already made by the Supreme Court.
The reference is an attempt to reopen a binding judgment and, as such, should be declined by the court under its discretionary power.

Key constitutional articles involved:

• Article 200: Governor’s options when a bill is presented.
• Article 201: President’s power on bills reserved by the Governor.
• Article 142: Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice.
• Article 143: Presidential reference to the Supreme Court for advisory opinion.
• Article 361: Immunity of President and Governors from court proceedings.
• Article 145(3) and 131: Deal with Supreme Court procedures and original jurisdiction.

At the centre of this constitutional debate is the question of accountability and efficiency in the legislative process versus preserving the independence of constitutional functionaries. The Supreme Court’s ruling could redefine how quickly, and under what constraints, Governors and the President must act on state legislation.

The special bench will take up the matter on Tuesday, August 19, in what is being seen as a potentially landmark hearing on the limits of judicial review and constitutional governance in India.

– Ends

Tune In