Presidential Reference | Supreme Court refers to happenings in Nepal; Centre opposes timelines for President, Governors on Bills
“We are proud of our Constitution. See what is happening in our neighbouring states,” CJI Gavai noted amidst rising tensions and violence in Nepal.
Parmod Kumar
Published on: 10 September 2025, 09:12 pm
THE SUPREME COURT TODAY referred to developments in neighbouring Nepal while asserting that it is “proud” of the Indian Constitution, even as the Centre reiterated its opposition to the Court fixing timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by State legislatures.
“We are proud of our Constitution. See what is happening in our neighbouring states… Nepal we saw,” said Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a five-judge Constitution Bench hearing the Presidential Reference seeking an advisory opinion on whether the Court could prescribe a timeframe for constitutional functionaries to decide on Bills presented for assent.
Justice Vikram Nath, another member of the Bench, added: “Yes, Bangladesh also.”
The Bench also comprises Justices Surya Kant, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar.
On the ninth day of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in his rejoinder submissions, described as “aberration” the conduct of Governors in some Opposition-ruled States who had withheld assent to Bills for long durations or indefinitely.
Since 1970, in the last 54 years, he said, 17,000 Bills had been presented before Governors, and only in 20 cases was assent withheld indefinitely.
“Inaction by the Governors in one or two States cannot lead to the conclusion of felt necessity, and the remedy is not to amend the Constitution by a judgment. It cannot immobilise one constitutional authority,” Mehta argued, “There has to be a collaborative exercise and a balancing act. If the Governor has no powers or discretion, then where comes the collaborative exercise? We may have Governors who have not acted in the way they were expected. We have a strong democracy. There are political dialogues and political solutions. Not everything comes to this Court.”
The Solicitor General furnished data to back his argument. Since 1970, in the last 54 years, he said, 17,000 Bills had been presented before Governors, and only in 20 cases was assent withheld indefinitely. In 90 percent of cases, assent was given in less than a month; in some cases, within two or three months, and only rarely beyond six months.
The Bench, however, objected to the Solicitor General citing figures. “This is not fair. We have not permitted them (opposing reference) to give empirical data; you too objected to it and now you are doing it. How is it relevant to the issue before the Court for answering the Presidential Reference? We have not permitted them; we will not permit you. Why don’t you talk about it since 1950 till date?” the CJI and the bench told Mehta.
They further pressed him: “In how many cases have the Governors withheld the assent to Bills indefinitely?” When Mehta said there were 20 such instances, the Bench asked: “In how many cases has the Governor made a declaration that he would withhold the assent?”
Mehta reiterated that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor has four options—giving assent, returning the Bill to the legislature with a message, reserving it for consideration by the President, or withholding it indefinitely.
