Governors not outsiders; carries will of nation into individual States: Centre to Supreme Court

The Union of India has informed the Supreme Court that the power of Governors and the President to act on Bills is a “high prerogative” function which cannot be bound by judicial timelines.

Centre's second senior most law officer Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued in his written note that the constitutional text deliberately leaves Articles 200 (Governor's powers regarding assent to bills passed by the State Legislature) and 201 (when a Bill is reserved by a Governor for the consideration of the President) without deadlines and that any attempt by the Court to prescribe one would amount to rewriting the Constitution.

Pertinently, the Centre also said that Governors are not mere emissaries or outsiders in a State but carry the will of the people of the entire country into individual States.

The submissions were made in the Presidential reference case arising from the Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling which set binding timeframes for Governors to act on Bills and indicated an outer limit for decisions when Bills are reserved for the President. The judgment triggered concerns over whether the Court had crossed into the constitutional space of assent.

President Droupadi Murmu, invoking Article 143(1), referred questions to the Supreme Court on whether such timelines can be judicially imposed, and whether Article 142 can be used to sustain them.

A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar is set to commence hearing in the matter from August 19, Tuesday.

Below are the ten key points from the Union’s submissions:

1. Constitutional supremacy, not judicial supremacy

The Centre said all three organs derive legitimacy from the Constitution and none is above the other.

“Each organ is coordinate and coequal within the field that the Constitution assigns to it. It is constitutional supremacy that is the governing principle.”

2. Role of Governors is representative, not alien

The note emphasised that Governors are not outsiders but carry the democratic will of the Union into the States.

“Governors are not just emissaries of the Centre, rather representatives of the entire nation in each and every federating unit.”

3. Assent is sui generis and outside judicial reach

According to the Centre, assent by Governor or President is neither wholly executive nor wholly legislative, and this unique character makes it non-justiciable (actionable in court).

“The gubernatorial assent is a high prerogative, plenary, non-justiciable power which is sui generis (unique) in nature.”

4. No timelines where Constitution is silent

The Union underlined that the framers consciously imposed time limits in some provisions but omitted them in Articles 200 and 201.

“Since the text of Article 200 or 201, does not provide a specific time limit, no form of judicial review or judicial interpretation can impose the same.”

5. Punjab judgment termed per incuriam

The 2024 ruling that required Governors to return Bills “as soon as possible” was criticised as contrary to larger Bench decisions.

“It ignores the textual difference between ‘withhold’ and ‘return’ and is therefore, per incuriam and not a good law,” the Centre's note said.

6. Article 142 has limits

The note cautioned that the power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 to do “complete justice” cannot be employed to undo constitutional design.

“Article 142 is not a supervening judicial power which can override the constitutional provisions or run contrary to them.”

7. Governors can act in discretion

The Centre relied on case law to say the Governor may apply independent judgment under Article 200 without binding advice.

“Accordingly, the Governor is not precluded from exercising discretion under Article 200 even in the absence of aid and advice to that effect.”

8. Commission reports do not control interpretation

Recommendations of Sarkaria, Punchhi or other commissions cannot replace Constitutional text, the Union said.

“The recommendation cannot override existing constitutional text.”

9. Article 361 immunity protects Governors

The Union reminded that decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are official acts covered by constitutional immunity.

“Article 361 grants complete personal immunity to the Governor from being answerable to any court for acts done or purported to be done in the exercise of official powers.”

10. No judicial review of pending Bills

Judicial scrutiny attaches only after enactment; pending Bills cannot be interfered with.

“The Constitution clearly provides that law-making is the sole province of the Legislatures and that the constitutional courts cannot judicially review any pending Bill,” it was submitted.