- SC questioned Governors’ prolonged delays in acting on State Bills, noting concerns raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that withholding assent is a valid constitutional option, not a clerical formality, and serves as a safeguard against unconstitutional or harmful laws.
- CJI B.R. Gavai said the framers of the Constitution expected Governors to function in harmony with State governments, though with an independent role as a constitutional check.
The Supreme Court raised serious concerns over Governors indefinitely delaying action on Bills passed by State legislatures, even as the Union government insisted such disputes are being exaggerated by Opposition-ruled States.
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, leading a five-judge Bench hearing a Presidential Reference, highlighted instances where Governors had withheld decisions for years, leaving State legislatures in limbo.
The case has become a flashpoint between the Centre and States, particularly Tamil Nadu and Kerala, which accuse Governors of stalling governance.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, defended the institution, saying Governors are not “ornamental” figures and must exercise their constitutional role with discretion.
He maintained that withholding assent is an independent option under the Constitution, designed as a safeguard against unconstitutional or nationally harmful laws. The matter is being keenly watched, as the outcome of the Presidential Reference could define new contours in Centre-State relations. Legal experts say the ruling may clarify whether Governors are bound to act within a reasonable timeframe on Bills, an issue that has repeatedly stoked political tension across multiple States.