Fixing deadlines for Governors, President on assent to bills to lead to constitutional disorder, Centre tells SC

The Centre said this in the written submissions filed in the Presidential Reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly.

New Delhi: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that imposing fixed timelines on Governors and the President to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution and lead to a "constitutional disorder".

In a written submission, he said, 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.

"If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers," he said.

The written submission was filed in the Presidential Reference before the Constitution bench raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly.

It contended the apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law.

"The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally-sanctioned mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs, etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head," it said.

It also pointed out that Governors are not to be treated as alien or foreigner in the federating units of the Union.

"Governors are not just emissaries of the Centre rather representatives of the entire nation in each and every federating unit. They represent national interest and national democratic will in the States as part of the larger Indian constitutional brotherhood," it said.

The positions of the Governor and President are "politically plenary" and represent "high ideals of democratic governance". Any perceived lapses must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through "judicial" interventions, it emphasised.

The note contended that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the Governors' and President's alternatives after receiving a state bill, deliberately contained no timelines.

"When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution," Mehta said.

He emphasised that the gubernatorial assent is a high prerogative, plenary, non-justiciable power which is sui generis in nature.

Although the power of assent is exercised by the person at the apex of the Executive, the assent itself is legislative in nature, he said.

"Despite the expanding contours of judicial review, there are some zones like assent that remain non-justiciable. The classical notion of judicial review cannot be lifted and applied to assent as the factors at play during the grant or withholding of an assent have no legal or constitutional parallel. The unique duality of assent, thus, deserves a uniquely-calibrated judicial approach," the note says.

The court had earlier fixed a time schedule for hearing the Presidential Reference and proposed to start the hearing from August 19.

On May 13, 2025, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.

The decision came in light of an April 8, 2025 verdict of the apex court that was delivered in a matter over the powers of the Governor in dealing with bills that were questioned by the Tamil Nadu government.

The verdict, for the first time, prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such a reference is received.

Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.