If Governor Keeps Bills Pending For Long, What Is The Recourse? Supreme Court Asks AG In Presidential Reference

During the hearing of the Presidential Reference on the questions relating to granting assent to Bills, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 19) orally remarked that the judgment by the two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case might have been given to "handle an egregious situation" created by the Governor keeping the Bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly pending for a long time.

The Court also asked the Attorney General for India what would be the "Constitutionally permissible recourse" when the Court is confronted with a situation where the Governor was keeping Bills pending for several years. If the Court is wrong in declaring deemed assent for the Bills, what should be the next option, the bench asked.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani said that even in such an undesirable fact situation, the Court cannot take over the functions of the Governor and declare assent for the Bills.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath , Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar was hearing the matter.

During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant asked Attorney General Venkataramani whether the statement in the TN Governor case judgment that bills from 2020 are pending was correct.

"The facts that are noted...is it correct that 2020 Bills are pending?" Justice Surya Kant asked. Admitting that it was factually correct, AG said, "That's factually correct. Let's say, even if it is factually correct, so many Bills were sent back.. that's the dynamics. I did not want to go back to the facts of the case, since I appeared there."

Justice Surya Kant then said that the observations in paragraph 432 seemed to be a reaction to the facts noted in paragraph 431 of the judgment. In paragraph 431, the two-judge bench had noted,"Considerable time has elapsed since these ten Bills were originally passed and presented to the Governor for assent. Two out of the ten Bills even date back to 2020."

In the next paragraph 432, the judgment then stated, "The conduct exhibited on part of the Governor, as it clearly appears from the events that have transpired even during the course of the present litigation, has been lacking in bonafides. There have been clear instances where the Governor has failed in showing due deference and respect to the judgments and directions of this Court. In such a situation, it is difficult for us to repose our trust and remand the matter to the Governor with a direction to dispose of the bills in accordance with the observations made by us in this judgment." Citing these reasons, the two-judge bench invoked the powers under Article 142 to declare that the bills have received the deemed assent of the Governor.

AG said that there were certain explanations given for the delay in clearing the bills, which the Court rejected. "There are many reasons why probably the Governor kept on without giving his assent in time. We are not going into those reasons. We are not going into those particular facts in the judgment or the particular conclusions. We are talking about the state of law. Can the Court invoke the 142 power to declare deemed assent? That has to be tested," AG said.

Justice Narasimha then pointed out that paragraph 433 explained the reasons for exercising Article 142 power to grant deemed assent to the bill.

Para 433 stated as follows :

"Constitutional authorities are creatures of the Constitution and are bound by the limitations prescribed by it. No authority, in exercise of its powers, or to put it precisely, in discharge of its duties, must attempt to breach the constitutional firewall. The office of the Governor is no exception to this supreme command. Whenever there is an attempt by any authority to move beyond the bounds of the Constitution, this Court has been entrusted with the responsibility to act as the Sentinel on the qui vive and bring back the authority within the constitutionally permissible limits by exercising judicial review. We are not exercising our power under Article 142 in a casual manner, or without giving a thought to it. On the contrary, it is only after deepest of deliberations, and having reached at the firm conclusion that the actions of the Governor - first in exhibiting prolonged inaction over the bills; secondly in declaring a simplicter withholding of assent and returning the bills without a message; and thirdly in reserving the bills for the President in the second round - were all in clear violation of the procedure envisaged under the Constitution, that we have decided to declare the deeming of assent to the ten bills, considering it to be our constitutionally bounden duty. In our view, that is the only way to ensure that complete justice is done with the parties without any delay, and without possibility of any further delay due to any inaction on the part of the Governor, or lack of deference on his part to this judgment."

AG said that he was not asking the Constitution Bench to go into a re-evaluation of the facts of the Tamil Nadu case. "The question is, given a set of facts, even if they are so glaring or unpalatable, can the Court say it will enter into the shoes of the Governor and do what the Governor could have done? We are talking about a Constitutional issue. We are not talking about marriage or divorce etc. This is a different field altogether," AG said. He added that the judgment had many "disquieting features." "The judgment said the Governor did not follow the Punjab case judgment. One of the hon'ble judges was party to the Punjab case." he added.

Justice Surya Kant then asked, "Mr.Attorney, you also enlighten us, if these are the facts before a Constitutional Court, paragraph 431 and 433, and according to you, the Court went wrong in paragraph 432, what is the constitutionally permissible recourse for a Constitutional Court."

In reply, AG said, "If there is such a set of facts, where the Court feels there is no other option, would the Court still say I will do what the Governor do? The Court will say probably the Governor must be asked to find out what is the best course of action which he should follow. It would send back to the Governor. Otherwise, you are taking over the functions of the Governor. It can take over in any circumstances in future. No limits can be drawn. No lines can be drawn."

CJI Gavai then pointed out that the judgment also noted instances where the Governor has failed to give due deference to the decisions of the Court.

"If your lordships are to go into the facts of that case, there is some disquiet about it. I am not disputing the assessment of facts. I am assuming against myself. Even if it is so, if your lordships are sitting in a review, I would have gone into them. I am not doing that for the time being" AG asked.

Justice Narasimha then weighed in, "It can be seen as an egregious situation which has come to existence. Therefore, in order to get over that, the Court has...it was not in the form of laying down a precedent, it was to handle a situation. Paragraphs 432 and 433 are handling a situation like this, a situation which came since it was pending for a long time."

AG said that the judgment now has a precedent value which can be extended to any similar fact situation. "The Court can say, apply this law, ask the Governor to give deemed assent. The moment the Court enters into this arena, you have any number of mind-boggling facts which the Court may have to confront. Even if it is so, can this be done?"

The hearing will continue tomorrow.

Live updates from today's hearing can be followed here.

Also from today's hearing - 'We'll Be Just Expressing A View On Law, Not On TN Governor Decision' : Supreme Court On Presidential Reference Over Bill Timelines

Case : IN RE : ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA | SPL.REF. No. 1/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order