The Centre has asserted before the Supreme Court that Governors cannot indefinitely sit over bills passed by state legislatures. This statement comes amid ongoing debates regarding the constitutional powers of Governors and their role in assenting to or withholding assent from bills.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that while the Constitution grants Governors the discretion to act on legislation, this discretion is not unlimited. He emphasized that a Governor is not a "rubber stamp" but has a duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Mehta also pointed out that Governors, with few exceptions, have generally acted in a manner consistent with what the Supreme Court would expect.

The Supreme Court, however, has raised concerns about instances where Governors have delayed acting on bills for extended periods. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai questioned how the Centre could dismiss concerns about gubernatorial delays as a "false alarm" when bills have been pending with Governors for as long as four years.

This issue has arisen in the context of disputes between opposition-led states and Governors, with states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala accusing Governors of inexplicably withholding approval for critical legislation. The Supreme Court's April 8 ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case established a three-month timeline for the President and Governors to decide on bills.

The Centre has maintained that state governments cannot directly approach the Supreme Court alleging a breach of fundamental or legal rights due to delays by Governors. Mehta argued that fundamental rights are conferred upon citizens, not state governments. He also cited Article 361 of the Constitution, which provides immunity to the President and Governors from being questioned in courts for acts performed in their official capacity.

However, the Supreme Court has also expressed concern that allowing Governors to indefinitely delay decisions on bills could render the phrase "as soon as possible" in the Constitution meaningless. The court has emphasized that Governors are expected to act within a reasonable time frame.

The debate also encompasses the extent to which Governors are bound by the advice of the council of ministers. While some argue that Governors should act as mere transmitters of the will of elected legislatures, the Centre has asserted that Governors have a responsibility to act as guardians of the Constitution and representatives of the Union. Mehta has advocated for collaboration between state governments and Governors to ensure the smooth functioning of the Constitution.

Notably, the Centre has presented data indicating that, historically, a vast majority of bills passed by state assemblies receive assent within a month. However, the Supreme Court has cautioned against relying too heavily on such statistics, emphasizing the need to focus on the constitutional issues at hand. The court acknowledged the "enormous task" of balancing the differing views on the Governor's role, one viewing the Governor as entirely bound by the legislature and the other allowing wide discretion.