CJI Gavai highlighted instances where Governors kept Bills pending for up to four years, challenging the Centre’s dismissal of the issue.
Solicitor General Mehta argued that disputes over gubernatorial delays raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala amounted to a “false alarm,” insisting on cooperation between State governments and Governors.
The matter, examined by the Presidential Reference Bench, underscores tensions in Centre-State relations and the constitutional role of Governors in lawmaking.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday spotlighted the growing friction between State governments and Governors, as Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai questioned prolonged delays in gubernatorial assent to Bills. Heading a five-judge Presidential Reference Bench, CJI Gavai asked the Centre how such inaction could be dismissed as inconsequential when Governors had been “sitting on Bills for four years.”
According to The Hindu, the remark came during a hearing on disputes raised by Opposition-ruled States such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala, which have accused Governors of inexplicably withholding approval for critical legislation. The issue has triggered wider debates on the limits of gubernatorial discretion and its impact on State governance.
Representing the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta downplayed the concerns, terming them a “false alarm.” He argued that the constitutional framework requires “collaborative” functioning between a State and its Governor to ensure smooth administration. According to him, occasional disagreements cannot be read as a systematic obstruction.
CJI Gavai, however, as cited by PTI, pressed the Centre to reconcile its position with the lived reality of legislative paralysis caused by such long delays. The Bench’s observations underline the judiciary’s growing unease over what many see as a pattern of Governors overstepping their constitutional role or failing to act in a timely manner.
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.
