Presidential Reference | “Governor is not a ‘super Chief Minister,’ only a titular head,” argues Tamil Nadu
On the third day of hearings, CJI Gavai reiterated that the governor would not be justified in sitting over a bill for six months.
Published on: 28 August 2025, 08:25 pm
THE SUPREME COURT ON THURSDAY, for the third day in a row, while hearing the Presidential Reference, reiterated that a Governor cannot indefinitely sit over a Bill passed by a state legislature.
It was pointed to the Court that the Governor is not a “super Chief Minister” empowered to withhold even a money Bill, but only a titular head, described as an “ornamental” constitutional functionary acting as a “lubricator and facilitator” in the administration of the State.
Heading a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai observed, “We will not use the words the two-judge bench used, but the Governor would not be justified in sitting over the Bill for six months.”
The remark was an indirect reference to the April 8 judgment of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, who had employed the term “pocket veto” while laying down timelines for Governors and the President to decide on Bills presented for assent.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, opposed the Presidential Reference. He contended that once a Bill is presented to the Governor, he has only three options under Article 200—either to give assent, return it with a message for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. The argument that a Governor may indefinitely withhold a Bill, he argued, was misconstrued and runs contrary to the scheme of Article 200.
Sighvi argued that hypothetical doomsday scenarios have been presented to justify such a non-existent power of the Governor. To accept such a position will “make a mockery of the whole provision (Article 200).”
“We will not use the words the two-judge bench used, but the Governor would not be justified in sitting over the Bill for six months,” CJI Gavai noted.
Citing the Constituent Assembly debates, Singhvi recalled that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had characterised the Governor’s office as that of an “ornamental” head.
Rejecting the contention that judicial intervention is barred in cases where Governors fail to act on the Bills presented to him for assent, Singhvi argued that while the Governor forms part of the legislative process, he is neither a legislator nor part of the legislature. He placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court’s previous decisions in Shamsher Singh (1974), Nabam Rebia (2016), and the Constituent Assembly’s deliberations to buttress his submissions.