Even three months may be too long, Governors must decide on Bills ‘forthwith’: Opposition-ruled States in SC

West Bengal, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh said the will of the people, which the proposed laws manifest, cannot be sacrificed on the altar of the whims and fancies of Governors. They said sitting over Bills was actually a quiet disguise for denying assent, but without necessarily having to return the proposed laws back to the State legislature for re-consideration.

Presidential Reference hearing updates on September 3, 2025

The three States contended that if the Centre wanted them to presume that a high constitutional authority like the Governor would act with integrity while dealing with Bills, the same courtesy must be extended to State Legislatures who happened to be also high constitutional authorities.

Appearing before a five-judge Presidential Reference Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for West Bengal, said Article 200 required the Governor to return a Bill to a State Legislature “as soon as possible” in case he disagreed with it.

Mr. Sibal interpreted ‘ as soon as possible’ to mean ‘forthwith or immediately’. “’Forthwith’ must apply to Governors and President, who is actually the Union government, while dealing with grant of assent to proposed laws. Bills cannot wait,” Mr Sibal submitted.

The Governor had no business questioning the constitutionality of State Bills. He was bound to grant assent if the legislature re-passed them. Later, once the Bills are notified as laws, citizens could test their constitutionality in court, the senior lawyer said.

He drew attention to Article 167, which made it the Chief Minister’s duty to apprise the Governor of laws being contemplated by the State Cabinet. This was done as a part of the pre-legislative process. The senior lawyer said the Chief Minister would meet the Governor for an informal interaction to discuss the crafting of a law and taking in suggestions. Later, once the Bill was passed by the legislature, the Governor was expected to give his assent

Besides, Mr. Sibal pointed to the proviso of Article 254(2) of the Constitution which allowed the Parliament to neutralise a repugnant State law by “adding to, amending, varying or repealing” it.

Justice Surya Kant observed the proviso acted as a “second filter” on State Bills.

“But prevention is better than cure, no?” Justice Vikram Nath interjected.

Mr. Sibal replied there was a presumption of constitutionality associated with Bills passed by the legislature. References to the President by Governors were rare instances in the past.

“Now, Governors create conflict by sitting over Bills for years together. Their doubts about the constitutionality of Bills, especially in the case of re-passed Bills, is bogey… The power given to Governors to assent, withhold assent or refer State Bills to the President under Article 200 are not discretionary choices, but constitutional routes,” Mr. Sibal responded.

Karnataka, represented by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, said State Legislatures cannot allow other Constitutional authorities to invade upon their legislative powers. He said the Centre’s argument that the President and Governors have wide discretionary powers was “fundamentally flawed”.

“In the parliamentary form of democracy, the aid and advice of the Cabinet is central. There cannot be a dyarchy within a State. Governors have to act under the aid and advice of the State government. Governance cannot happen in a constant state of conflict or threat of conflict,” Mr. Subramanium submitted.

Advocate Anand Sharma, a former Union Minister, said neither the President nor Governors have any role in lawmaking.

“Even when they [President/Governor] come to the Parliament/State Assembly, they do not preside, they only address the House… Even a proposal to summon the Parliament starts with the Parliamentary Affairs Minister. The Prime Minister confirms and formally informs the Speaker, who through the Secretary General, forwards it to the President. So, even to summon the Parliament, the President is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers,” Mr. Sharma illustrated. eom

Published – September 03, 2025 07:28 pm IST