Overview

• The bench asked whether the Constitution’s phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 is nullified if governors can withhold assent indefinitely, warning it cannot mean “for eternity.”
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that neither states nor the Union can file Article 32 writs over assent decisions because governments have no fundamental rights and Article 361 grants constitutional immunity to the President and governors.
• The President has asked the Court to opine on the maintainability of state petitions under Article 32 and the scope of Article 361 immunity, with the bench hearing these questions as part of the reference.
• Representing Tamil Nadu, Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that a governor is bound by ministerial advice and cannot become a “super chief minister,” adding that prolonged withholding subverts responsible government.
• The hearings arise from an April 8 ruling that set timelines, including three months for presidential decisions on reserved bills, prompting the Article 143 reference and ongoing Constitution Bench scrutiny.