---

---

In a landmark hearing, the Supreme Court is examining whether the Governor of a State holds a veto power over bills passed by State legislatures or whether they are constitutionally obligated to grant assent after reasonable consideration. The case arises from a Presidential reference under Article 143, challenging the April 11 ruling by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which imposed time limits on Governors to act on bills.

Arguments Against Governor’s Veto Power

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing Karnataka, asserted that a Governor does not have an unqualified veto. His role is limited to withholding assent only on ministerial advice for reconsideration, after which the Governor must assent to re-passed bills. He contended that allowing vetoes contradicts the principle of elected State legislatures and that any review of the President’s powers must follow the normal adjudicatory process, not Presidential references.

Kerala’s Stand on Governor’s Discretion

Senior Advocate KK Venugopal argued for Kerala, emphasizing that Governors should act promptly (“forthwith”) especially on critical bills like money bills. He acknowledged the Governor could withhold assent but must collaborate closely with Ministers, discussing bills before decisions. Venugopal highlighted practical governance, referring to past Kerala Governors who consulted ministers intimately to decide assents.

Punjab’s Submission on Limited Discretion

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing Punjab, stressed that Governor’s discretion under Article 200 is narrowly confined to three options—granting assent, withholding assent temporarily to return the bill for reconsideration, or reserving the bill for the President. Allowing indefinite withholding would create constitutional anomalies, undermining legislative certainty and predictability. Datar argued courts could impose reasonable timelines to prevent legislative deadlock.

Court’s Judicial Caution and Future Outlook

Justices expressed caution about excessive judicial interference in legislative processes but recognized the need for Governors to act reasonably within stipulated time frames. The court wrestled with balancing expediency in legislation against constitutional autonomy, inviting briefs on practical timelines.

Background and Continuing Debate

The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Governors cannot stall bills indefinitely and must follow time-bound processes. The Presidential reference questions if this encroaches on Governor’s and President’s discretionary powers as outlined in the Constitution. The debate spans interpretations of Articles 163, 200, and 201, and impacts federalism dynamics in India.

The matter remains under active hearing before the five-judge Constitution Bench, setting the stage for a significant constitutional verdict defining the boundaries of gubernatorial authority in state legislatures.