New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised a critical constitutional question: What happens when Governors indefinitely hold back bills cleared by state legislatures?

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to clarify the “permissible constitutional recourse” in such a scenario.

Referring to the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case, the bench recalled how a two-judge bench had, in April this year, invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare that ten long-pending bills had received “deemed assent.” Those bills, two of which dated back to 2020, had been kept pending by Governor RN Ravi without explanation.

The earlier bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had described the Governor’s conduct as “illegal” and “arbitrary,” observing:

“The conduct exhibited on the part of the Governor… has been lacking in bona fides. There have been clear instances where the Governor has failed in showing due deference and respect to the judgments and directions of this court.”

That bench went on to state it was the Court’s “constitutionally bounden duty” to step in, declaring the bills assented to ensure justice and prevent further delay.

On Tuesday, the Constitution Bench pressed the AG on whether such judicial intervention was constitutionally valid. “Can the court enter into the shoes of the Governor and do what the Governor ought to have done?” the bench asked. 

Justice PS Narasimha noted that the April ruling was responding to “an egregious situation” rather than laying down a precedent. “It was to handle a situation that had arisen due to the long pendency of bills,” he observed.

The AG, however, cautioned against courts assuming executive functions. “Otherwise, you are taking over the functions of the Governor. No limits can be drawn. No lines can be drawn,” he argued, stressing that such use of Article 142 must itself be tested.

The bench reminded him that the April judgment had specifically cited repeated defiance by the Governor in complying with judicial directions.

Meanwhile, the court also addressed the Presidential reference under Article 143(1), where President Droupadi Murmu has sought clarity on whether fixed timelines can be judicially imposed on Governors and the President while acting on state bills. The bench emphasized:

“We are not deciding whether the Tamil Nadu judgment is correct or not. We are only answering the reference made by the President.” The hearing will continue on Wednesday.