Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state, argued forcefully that “if you give a timeline, you are ensuring the Article functions, that the constitutional machinery functions, not that you are amending it.” He emphasised that the Governor’s role under Article 200 must respect both constitutional duty and democratic objectives.
West Bengal, along with other opposition‑ruled states, urged the bench not to allow Governors to act as obstructive forces to popularly enacted legislation. The argument underscored that allowing unchecked discretion to stand would undermine legislative authority and dilute democratic accountability.
Yet, the bench has raised complex questions. During hearings, justices observed that a few isolated cases of delay do not necessarily justify blanket rules and that setting rigid deadlines may intrude into constitutional discretion.
West Bengal’s counsel highlighted that under Article 200, the Governor has limited, well‑defined options—assent, return with suggestions, or reservation for the President—and cannot decline action indefinitely or on his own “whim.” He pointed out that unfettered discretion by the Governor could render laws null, even after being re‑passed by a duly elected Assembly.
State governments also cautioned that recognising such extendable discretion could effectively create a “super Chief Minister,” as seen in recent legal discourse, where Governors exercised withholding powers in an unchecked manner. The argument stressed that constitutional functionaries are not beyond judicial review—immunity under Article 361 should not shield actions from scrutiny if they subvert constitutional norms.
The legal backdrop includes the April ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, where a two‑judge bench held that Governors cannot exercise absolute or pocket vetoes. It also laid out that the President must decide on bills within three months and that courts can review delays under Articles 200 and 201.
At issue now is whether the Supreme Court, under Article 142, can prescribe firm procedural frameworks when the Constitution lacks explicit timelines. The bench’s cautious inquiry—whether timelines amount to constitutional amendment—signals its awareness of preserving judicial restraint and respect for constitutional architecture.