Overview

• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the President seeks the Court’s view on whether a state can file a writ against a Governor’s or the President’s decision given Article 361 immunity.
• The Centre argued that a state cannot invoke Article 32, saying such disputes belong under Article 131, and that courts cannot prescribe timelines for constitutional functionaries.
• The bench asked how the phrase “as soon as possible” can stand if assent is withheld indefinitely, noting the drafting shift from an earlier six-week limit.
• Representing Tamil Nadu, Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended governors are bound by ministerial advice and warned that withholding assent, even on money bills, would make a governor a “super chief minister.”
• In April, the Court required presidential decisions on reserved bills within three months and held Article 201 functions reviewable, prompting the Article 143 reference now under hearing.