New Delhi: Three of the five judges on the constitution bench hearing the Presidential Reference on the issue of assent to bills on Tuesday (September 2), orally observed that governors cannot sit endlessly over Bills placed before them for assent.

The states of Tamil Nadu and West Bengal reiterated the view.

Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices Vikram Nath and P.S. Narasimha separately remarked that governors could neither delay the wisdom of the legislature indefinitely nor impede the functioning of the constitution, reported The Hindu.

“No organ can impair the functioning of the constitution,” said Justice Narasimha.

The state of Tamil Nadu, represented by senior advocates A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, said that governors “cannot assume to be royalty in a republic”.

Appearing for West Bengal, senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that high offices under the constitution must work collaboratively with each other and not combatively.

“When the constitution is clear that a governor should act with immediacy, why should he hold back Bills? There is a sense of urgency associated with the governor’s assent. Legislation is a sovereign act. It cannot wait,” said Sibal.

He added that it would be an “absurdity” if the court agreed with the Union government’s argument that governors had absolute power to withhold state Bills under Article 200 of the Constitution, which relates to governors’ power to assent to Bills.

Sibal said that states cannot go in search of political solutions in order to coax governors’ assent.

“This constitution has its genesis in history, but its alignment is with the future... And who decides the future of this country? You five, in this case. The future of India is at stake if you give such absurd powers to the governor,” said Sibal.

However, the court expressed doubts about the court imposing “general” time limits on the President and governors and granting “deemed assent” to Bills.

“What happens if the time limit of three months set by the Supreme Court [in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case] is not followed by the President or governors,” asked Justice Nath, reported The Hindu.

CJI Gavai pointed out that different exigencies and time plans may mark the enactment of different Bills. He said a broad brushstroke of a “general” timeline applicable to all cases of delay may amount to overreaching by the judiciary.

Earlier on August 26, the court had expressed concern over the Union government’s interpretation of Article 200 that governors have an independent power to withhold a Bill, without returning it to the state legislative assembly.

The hearing in the matter rises from  a 14-point reference to the Supreme Court sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May for an opinion on some of the court’s own powers.

The reference concerns the apex court’s landmark judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, in which timelines were set for the President to act as per Article 201 of the constitution on Bills that a governor reserves for Presidential assent.

The Supreme Court had held in that case that Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi’s decision to reserve 10 Bills for Presidential assent was illegal.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.