The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P. S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, insisted that arguments be confined to constitutional principles rather than devolve into political sparring. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi—representing Tamil Nadu—sought to present data illustrating governors’ delays, prompting Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to caution against converting the matter into a political battlefield. The bench agreed, reiterating that interpretation of the Constitution must remain paramount.
The origins of this reference lie in a landmark April ruling, in which a two‑judge bench found that a governor cannot indefinitely withhold or exercise a pocket or absolute veto on legislation duly passed by the state assembly. That verdict established three permissible courses of action under Article 200: granting assent, returning the bill to the legislature for reconsideration, or reserving it for the President. It also laid down timelines: a one‑month limit for actions based on cabinet advice, three months in other cases, and a firm one‑month deadline once a bill is re‑passed by the legislature. Delay beyond these limits may trigger judicial review.
That April judgment followed mounting concerns over how prolonged inaction by governors can undermine the legislative process. In August, the Court observed that a governor withholding a bill without even asking the assembly to reconsider is counterproductive, eroding democratic procedure. Subsequently, during hearings, the Court clarified that while individual instances of delay may warrant judicial relief, they do not justify imposing a uniform timeline on all governors and the President. The Court affirmed that constitutional flexibility, such as the phrase "as soon as possible," allows discretion in seeking assent.
The bench further stressed that it is addressing the reference in its advisory capacity, not as an appellate forum reviewing the division bench ruling. The purpose remains interpretative guidance on constitutional questions, not overturning prior judgments.
Legal scholars note that the April ruling significantly bolstered legislative sovereignty and delineated the procedural limits of gubernatorial power, reinforcing federal democratic norms. Critics, however, cautioned that fixation on rigid timelines could undermine the constitutional discretion granted to governors under Article 200—though the current bench appears to favour a balanced reading that respects both principles.
As the hearing continues, the Court’s unwavering focus on constitutional fidelity—free from political influence—sets a tone of cautious integrity. It underscores that the resolution of these complex questions must rest on law, not partisan pressure, with the Court acting as a custodian of constitutional norms rather than a political arbiter.