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. “How can you say... if bills are pending for 4 years before Governor,” CJI Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, during the arguments on Presidential Reference.
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 per cent bills have been held or 90 per cent 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 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.
The Presidential reference has questioned the April 11 judgment passed by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, fixing timeline for Governors and President in giving assent to Bills. Following the ruling, the President referred 14 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.
