New Delhi: The Supreme Court continued its hearing on Wednesday regarding the Presidential reference on whether timelines can be fixed for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the notion that Governors are mere “postmen,” asserting that they occupy a high constitutional office with an essential role in the legislative process.

While most Bills are assented to within a month, he stressed that Governors cannot be reduced to “ornamental” figures. He explained that withholding assent can cause a Bill to “fall through,” drawing from the Constituent Assembly debates, and cautioned against courts altering the Constitution through judicial interpretation.

Tushar Mehta emphasized that Governors, as constitutional heads, must preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution under oath, not act as agents of political parties or the Union government.

Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy, representing Telangana, argued that Article 200 provides no general discretion to Governors except in narrow circumstances, such as when Bills affecting High Court powers must be reserved for the President. He warned against expanding Governors’ powers beyond the intent of the Constitution-makers.

Senior Advocate P. Wilson highlighted that Articles 200 and 201 are part of the legislative procedure and must protect state autonomy, federal structure, and parliamentary democracy. He urged that the people’s will, expressed through elected governments, should not be frustrated by indefinite delays.

Wilson also cited landmark cases such as S.R. Bommai and Rameshwar Prasad to underline the applicability of judicial review on constitutional authorities’ actions. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan noted that advisory opinions under Article 143 are “reports,” not judgments, but carry significant constitutional weight.

Advocate Avani Bansal argued that the “right to time” under Article 14 should be recognized, as indefinite inaction by Governors or the President amounts to arbitrariness.

The hearing witnessed sharp exchanges, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal claiming such controversies arose “only after 2014,” to which Tushar Mehta responded that Governors had adhered to constitutional limits for decades. The hearing is scheduled to continue tomorrow, with the Bench aiming to conclude by 1 pm.