Overview

• The Constitution Bench flagged as problematic an interpretation of Article 200 that lets a Governor withhold assent at the threshold, asking whether even Money Bills could then be stalled.
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Money Bill concern does not arise because such bills are introduced on the Governor’s recommendation under Article 207, and urged that any timelines must be set by Parliament.
• Maharashtra’s counsel Harish Salve argued only the Governor or the President can grant assent, rejected any concept of deemed assent, and invoked Article 361 to say courts cannot question the reasons for their decisions.
• Several BJP‑ruled states supported broad discretion for constitutional authorities, contending assent is a legislative act not subject to fixed deadlines and that withholding power flows from Articles 200 and 201.
• Chief Justice B. R. Gavai cited judicial review of Article 356 to question why a Governor’s prolonged inaction on bills cannot be reviewed, with hearings set to continue on August 28 when Tamil Nadu and Kerala are due to respond.