Presidential Reference: Telangana argues governors bound by ministerial advice except in limited cases

The Telangana government has submitted before the Supreme Court that the office of the Governor is ordinarily bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, including in matters relating to prosecution sanction, save where the Chief Minister or a Minister stands personally implicated in a criminal proceeding.

The matter is being heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai on a Presidential reference under Article 143(1). The reference seeks authoritative guidance on whether Governors and the President may indefinitely defer decisions on bills presented for assent and whether the judiciary can prescribe binding timelines for such constitutional functions.

Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy, appearing for Telangana, urged the Court to examine the “inherent bias” that may arise when Governors choose to withhold assent, drawing attention to the example of Tamil Nadu where the Governor declined to act on a bill divesting him of the role of Chancellor of state universities. He further argued that the second proviso to Article 200 clearly reflects that the Governor enjoys no independent discretion in the ordinary course and is duty-bound to follow ministerial advice.

Contentions on behalf of other States were also placed before the Court. Punjab, represented by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, submitted that the expression “as soon as possible” in Article 200 was deliberately incorporated by the framers to prevent indefinite delay, and therefore the Court may fix a reasonable outer limit, such as three months, for assent. Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, for Kerala, relied upon the practice of former Governor Arif Mohammad Khan, who would seek inputs from the concerned departments before acting, contending that such consultation cannot be equated with discretionary inaction. Karnataka, on its part, reiterated that under the constitutional scheme, both the President and Governors are only titular heads, bound to act strictly on ministerial advice.

The reference places before the Court fourteen substantive questions, including whether a Governor may indefinitely withhold assent to a bill and whether courts are empowered to prescribe mandatory timelines for the discharge of such functions. The proceedings, which arise from the Court’s decision in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s matter, remain ongoing.