Court: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Bench: Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai; Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar
Date of Hearing: August 28, 2025
Issues
- Whether a Governor can act as a judicial authority to review the constitutionality or repugnancy of a Bill before granting assent.
- Whether a Governor may indefinitely withhold assent without returning the Bill to the State Legislature.
- Whether a Governor can reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President after it has been re-passed by the Legislature in the same form.
- Whether the Governor’s discretion extends to withholding assent even in the case of Money Bills.
Submissions by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for the State of Tamil Nadu)
- The Governor is not a judicial reviewer; questions of constitutionality, repugnancy, or illegality are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts.
- Withholding assent and returning a Bill are interwoven components under Article 200. A Governor cannot merely withhold without returning.
- Once a Bill is re-passed unmodified by the Legislature, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent.
- If repugnancy is suspected, the Governor must reserve the Bill for the President at the first instance, not subsequently.
- Even when reserving, the Governor acts only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, not independently.
- Cited Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab to counter the interpretation that a Bill “falls through” if withheld. Correct reading: a Bill lapses only if the Assembly fails to reconsider it when returned.
- Clarified that Article 207 bars private members from introducing financial Bills; it does not empower the Governor to withhold assent to Money Bills.
- Warned against equating the Governor to a “super–Chief Minister,” stressing that democratic will lies with the elected Legislature.
Bench’s Queries & Observations
- CJI Gavai: Queried whether the Governor can reserve a Bill for Presidential assent after it has been re-passed unaltered by the Assembly.
- Justice Narasimha: Noted that the phrase “falls through” used in Shamsher Singh may be a mischaracterization; the correct expression is “Bill lapses.”
- Bench engaged with arguments on whether Article 200 distinguishes between ordinary Bills and Money Bills in the context of assent.
Status
- Hearing ongoing; the Court is examining the constitutional contours of Article 200 and the extent of gubernatorial discretion in granting or withholding assent to State Bills.
