SC Wonders How Bills Pending With Governors For Years Can Be A False Alarm By States
Solicitor General Tishar Mehta said that, as per data, only 20 bills out of 17,000 across the nation were withheld by different governors since 1970.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : September 10, 2025 at 8:10 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed surprise at the Centre's contention that state governments were raising false alarms on the pendency of bills with the governors.
A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar has been hearing submissions on the presidential reference, which raised constitutional questions on whether the court can impose timelines for governors and the President to deal with bills passed by state assemblies.
On the ninth day of hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that essentially, the governor's role will have to be as a guardian and protector of the Constitution, a representative of Union of India, and a person who works in interest of the entire nation, because he represents the President of India and everything he should do in consultation and collaboration with the Council of Ministers.
Mehta said often there are consultations, meetings, and discussions between the chief minister and the governor on issues associated with the bills, and stressed, "This is how the Constitution works and has worked. Now we are raising a false alarm that there is a need to do something."
The CJI asked Mehta how he could say a false alarm has been raised by the Opposition states when the bills are pending with the governor for four years. "How can you? Bills are pending with the governor for four years," said the CJI.
Mehta said he is not justifying the indefinite pendency of the bills, and there cannot be a straightjacket timeline because each bill depends on the facts of each case. "Your one line of argument is that the governor has the power to withhold the bill permanently," the CJI observed.
Mehta said right from 1970 till date, as per the data available, only 20 bills across the nation were withheld by different governors out of 17,000 bills. Justice Narasimha asked Mehta whether he had the data of bills that were sent and cleared for years. Mehta said he has the data to show that 90% of the bills were given assent in one month.
Objecting to Mehta's submissions, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the bills are pending for more than three or four years in West Bengal, but he did not give any data. "All this is happening after 2014, and not before that," he added.
Regarding the data on bills, the CJI told Mehta that the court did not permit the Opposition states to give data regarding the period of pendency of bills, and it will not permit the Centre either. "That is not fair," the CJI said, as Mehta insisted on bringing on record data regarding bills, and asked him to argue on questions of law instead of focusing on empirical data on bills.
Justice Nath observed that the nation has been continuing with the Constitution and democracy for 75 years, irrespective of whether 50% bills have been withheld. The CJI said, "We are proud of our Constitution. What has been happening to the neighbouring countries? Like what happened in Nepal."
Referring to Bangladesh, Justice Nath told Mehta that what happened before 2014 and what is happening after 2014 is not relevant for the court. He asked if 20 bills had been declared by the governor to be withheld. Mehta clarified that there is a declaration.
Sibal said, "I have never heard. We never get a message that I (the governor) am withholding the bill. At least that declaration, I have never seen any formal declaration made. He just sends it back (to the assembly), and there is no declaration." Mehta said Sibal is misconstruing his submissions and stressed that a declaration is a constitutional requirement.
Questioning the proposition advanced by Mehta, Justice Narasimha asked whether the governor can straight away say that he will not assent to the bill? "The moment the assembly passes the bill, it comes to the governor, and if he says that I will not assent to the bill, that would have to be interpreted in the context of two principles: one is federalism, and the principle of democracy, and both have to be balanced. But to say at the outset, the moment the bill is sent to the governor and he says he has withheld it back, is a difficult proposition to accept."
Earlier in the day, senior advocate Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the Telangana government, said ordinarily the governor is bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers even while dealing with sanctioning of prosecution, except in the instance where a minister or the chief minister is involved in a criminal case. Reddy said that the apex court, while answering the presidential reference, will also have to look into the "inherent bias" on the part of the governor by sitting over the bill.
Reddy referred to the instance of Tamil Nadu, where the governor sat over the bill, passed by the assembly, for removing the governor from being chancellor of state-run universities. "The court will have to look into it," he said. The hearing in the matter will continue on Thursday.
Also Read:
