Courts Can’t Approve Bills, Maharashtra Tells SC
Maharashtra argues only Governors, President can assent bills.
In a high-stakes Supreme Court hearing, the Maharashtra government, represented by senior advocate Harish Salve, argued that courts lack the authority to grant assent to state assembly bills, a power exclusively vested in governors or the President. The submission came before a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, addressing a presidential reference on whether courts can impose timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures.
Salve, citing Article 361, emphasized that governors and the President are not answerable to courts for their decisions, including withholding assent. “The court cannot issue a writ of mandamus compelling assent. Only governors or the President can grant it,” he told the bench, which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar. He argued that while courts can inquire into decisions, they cannot question the reasoning behind them, as governors’ powers under Article 200 are not subject to judicial review.
Highlighting the distinction between the President, who acts on central government advice, and governors, who have broader discretion, Salve noted that Article 200 allows governors to assent, withhold, or reserve bills for the President without a mandated timeline. “Indian federalism doesn’t require assent after a few discussions,” he said, adding that political deliberations often influence the process, which could take anywhere from 15 days to six months.
Also Read: 44 Passengers Escape Bus Fire on Mumbai-Goa Highway
The bench challenged this, asking if a governor could indefinitely delay a bill, leaving the judiciary powerless. “If a bill passed in 2020 remains undecided by 2025, is the court helpless?” they queried. Salve maintained that the governor’s authority to withhold assent, though not a “veto,” is constitutionally protected under Articles 200 and 201, even for money bills. Senior advocate N K Kaul, representing Madhya Pradesh, reinforced that governors have three clear options: assent, withhold, or reserve for the President, with the proviso for returning a bill serving as a consultative mechanism.
The case stems from a May 2025 presidential reference under Article 143(1) by President Droupadi Murmu, prompted by a Tamil Nadu case where a bench led by Justice J B Pardiwala invoked Article 142 to grant assent to bills. As the debate continues, with Rajasthan’s arguments also underway, the Supreme Court’s ruling could redefine the balance of power between constitutional authorities and the judiciary in India’s federal framework.
Also Read: Doctor’s Tragic Death Exposes Bhiwandi’s Road Hazards
