Governor's Legislative Assent Powers Explained

On August 19, 2025, Attorney General R. Venkataramani presented arguments before a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, concerning the powers of Governors in relation to State legislation. Key points of the discussion and legal context included the following:

• Governor's Authority: Venkataramani articulated that a Governor's power to withhold assent from proposed State legislation operates independently of the Council of Ministers. He posited that in these instances, a Governor exercises personal judgment and does not merely act on the advice of the Council.

• Constitutional Provisions: The Attorney General cited the implications of post-1970s Constitutional Amendments, specifically noting that while the 42nd Amendment explicitly clarified Article 74(1) regarding the President's duties—mandating that the President acts according to Cabinet advice—Article 163 related to Governors remained unchanged.

• Unconstitutionality of Proposed Laws: He asserted that a Governor should not be compelled to follow the advice of the Council if a proposed State law is deemed unconstitutional, thereby exercising a form of independent discretion.

• Constitution Bench Reference: Venkataramani invoked Article 145(3) of the Constitution, advocating for the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case to be referred to a Constitution Bench consisting of at least five judges. He argued that the matter involves substantial legal questions regarding the powers and discretion of the Governor.

• Judicial Clarification: Justice P.S. Narasimha responded, indicating that it is not obligatory for every significant constitutional interpretation to be escalated to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3). This comment suggested a need for judicial discretion in determining the necessity of such referrals.

• Presidential Reference Justification: The Attorney General justified the Presidential Reference, asserting that when substantial questions of law remain unresolved, a prudent course of action would be to seek authoritative clarification from a larger bench.

• Judicial Opinion Dynamics: Justice Narasimha further highlighted that even within a Presidential Reference, judges may express diverse opinions, emphasizing the complexities involved in matters of constitutional interpretation.

This case underscores significant constitutional questions about the independence of a Governor's judgment versus the Council's guidance, the necessity of judicial references for clarity in legal interpretations, and the ongoing relevance of constitutional provisions in contemporary governance.

Key Bullet Points:

• The Attorney General asserted the independent power of a Governor to withhold assent from State legislation.
• Article 163 remains unchanged while Article 74(1) was clarified by the 42nd Amendment regarding the President’s actions.
• Governors may act independently if proposed laws are unconstitutional.
• Venkataramani sought referral of the Tamil Nadu case to a five-judge Constitution Bench under Article 145(3).
• Justice Narasimha noted that not all significant constitutional questions require referral to a larger bench.
• The discussion points to a need for authoritative clarification on the constitutional powers of governors.