The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Central government's argument that a false alarm was being raised in respect of Governors' inaction over bills passed by state legislatures..The Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu on May 13 to the top court under Article 143 of the Constitution seeking clarifications with respect to the Court's April ruling on deadlines for Governors to act on bills passed State legislatures."How can you say...if bills are pending for 4 years before Governor," CJI Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.In response, Mehta said that from 1970 till 2025, only 20 bills were withheld out of the 17,000 bills. He added that 90 per cent of bills are granted assent within one month..However, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi objected to the submission of data, stating that the SG had opposed their move to present their own data.CJI Gavai agreed that the data can't be one-sided, saying,"We cannot take the data...it will not be fair to them. We will not go into it. Then we have to unnecessarily go into data...earlier you objected to their data.".The Court also questioned the relevance of the data."The nation is continuing with the Constitution and democracy for 75 years irrespective whether 50 percent bills have been held or 90 percent bills have been withheld," Justice Nath said."We are proud of our Constitution. Look what is happening in neighboring States, like what happened in Nepal yesterday..." CJI Gavai added.Justice Nath also remarked that what happened before 2014 and what is happening afterwards is not relevant to the Court..The Presidential reference has questioned the April 11 judgment passed by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. In that verdict, the apex court held that Governors must act within a reasonable time and that constitutional silence could not be used to stall the democratic process.With regard to the President’s powers under Article 201, the Court held that her decision-making is not beyond judicial scrutiny and must occur within three months.Following the ruling, the President referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, raising concern over the judgment's interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. Among the questions referred are whether the Supreme Court can create procedural mechanisms in areas where the Constitution is silent and whether imposing time limits encroaches upon the discretionary space constitutionally granted to the President and Governors..Arguments today.Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy, representing the State of Telangana, today asked the Court to consider that the Constitution was made when there was a need for a strong unitary centre due to tensions. Reddy said that the Governor's powers must not be expanded now."Your lordships are looking at the law after 75 years when such tendencies are not as concerning or imminent. The necessity of trying to dilute a provision against the State's interests and in favour of Governor...the necessity may be lesser because the Indian Union has gathered strength. When your lordships look at the situational difference between the time the Constitution was made when they felt we can have Governor for certain oversight functions... ven then if Constituent Assembly members felt Governor's powers need to be restricted, there is no reason to expand that role after 75 years," Reddy added. He further said that the Governor has discretion only when it comes to the decision to reserve a bill for the consideration of the President. He also contended that if Article 200 is interpreted to give the Governor a discretion to withhold assent, it could have similar ramifications for Article 111. "Because the President could then equally claim such discretion. It cannot be that in a democratic setup at the Union level there is no such discretion, but at the State level the Governor has it," he added..Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for a political party, submitted that the Court cannot act as a layer between the Governor and a bill becoming a law. He said that the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu is an answer for the questions referred by the President. "This judgment in place is really helping the States," he added.Wilson also submitted that the grant of assent is not an exercise of legislative power contemplated under the Constitution. "It is a part of legislative procedure. And whether the procedure prescribed by the Constitution before enacting the law is followed or not can always be looked into by this Court," he said..Advocate Avani Bansal submitted that in the debate between the legislature and the executive, the citizens of India cannot be treated as sitting ducks. She argued that it was time to recognise the right to time as a concomitant right under Article 14. "If the Governors or the President do not act as constitutional functionaries within the time threshold that is required of them, irrespective of specific timelines, because we have “as soon as possible” as a higher threshold, then, my Lords, it is an arbitrary act. And we have a series of judgments saying that arbitrariness and equality are sworn enemies," Bansal said."My argument is that if Governors and Presidents do not act in time, even if there is no specific timeline, but they fail to act “as soon as possible,” then why, as a citizen of India, do I have no right? In multiple cases we have recognised the right to privacy, the right to media, and other derivative rights. My submission is that the right to time must also be recognized as a concomitant right," she added. .Advocate General Amit Kumar made brief submissions for the State of Meghalaya. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented an advocate and a former Director General of Police (DGP)."The advisory opinion is a report, merely a report. What flows from that is critical for the purpose of answering those 14 questions," Sankaranarayanan said. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, submitted that it supports the Union government on all aspects but one."We have supported the Union on all issues but to say that Article 32 will not lie in all cases by State, that is something which we cannot accept. Because where issues of pollution, man-made disasters and sub judice matters are pending, in those situations one cannot say that you should not be going under Article 32," it said..Rejoinder.Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta in rejoinder submissions said that the Governor does not have an absolute or unbridled right to sit endlessly for no reason over a bill.He contended that Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction cannot be said to be not binding."Your lordships' opinion is a law declared and your lordships can declare that this particular judgment or the view expressed does not lay down the correct law. Your lordships can even overrule. It is not just a communication or conversation between the President of India and Supreme Court," he said.SG questioned the argument that the Governor is only a postman in the process. "They have argued that he is only a postman with only two differences, that is beacon on his car and has a bigger house. That is the flawed constitutional argument," he said..Mehta also argued that some states, where Governors have withheld assent to bills, cannot declare "felt necessities" to amend the Constitution. He added that states cannot come to the top court and reduce it to the "position of headmaster"."More and more cases are not coming before your lordships because the problems are solved...outside the courtrooms," he added.However, Justice Narasimha said,"It is not a felt necessity, Constitution is an evolving subject. How do we weigh the proposition that you advance that Governor at the outset can say he will not assent... that should be interpreted in the context of federalism and democracy. We need to balance...both are as important." Justice Narasimha also asked whether once a bill is passed by the Houses and comes to the Governor, there is an obligation to ensure a consultative process. "Because when the Bill comes to the Governor, if he sends it back with a message, it gives the Assembly as well as the Government their recognition and role to play," he added. Mehta responded that it is not necessary that the Governor will withhold at the threshold. "He may have a consultative process. He can persuade them. Suppose part of the Bill conflicts with a Central subject. Rather than referring it to the President, he might call the Minister and say these two provisions are problematic, if you agree I can return it to the House, you correct those..." he said.Mehta will continue his submissions on Thursday. The decision on the Presidential reference will likely be reserved tomorrow.
