The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments regarding the power of Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures, with a particular focus on whether courts can mandate a timeline for this process. During the hearing, the Maharashtra government, represented by senior counsel Harish Salve, asserted that the authority to approve state bills rests solely with the President or the Governor.

Salve argued against the concept of "deemed assent," where courts could approve bills if no action is taken. He stated that courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus to compel Governors to grant assent, as the power to do so is constitutionally vested in the executive branch. Salve also referenced Article 361 of the Constitution, which protects the President and Governor from being answerable to any court for the exercise of their official duties.

The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines the Governor's options when a bill is presented for assent. The Governor can: 1. Give assent. 2. Withhold assent. 3. Return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration (except in the case of money bills). 4. Reserve the bill for the President's consideration.

A key point of contention is whether Governors have the independent power to withhold assent, effectively vetoing a bill, even a money bill. The Supreme Court has expressed reservations about an interpretation of Article 200 that grants Governors an unfettered right to withhold assent without returning the bill to the State Legislature. The court noted that this could lead to a "problematic" situation where Governors could potentially block even money bills, which are generally expected to be approved.

Justice Narasimha questioned how a Governor could outright reject a money bill when the proviso explicitly prevents its return for reconsideration. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that money bills are introduced with the Governor's recommendation under Article 207, suggesting the issue of the Governor withholding assent wouldn't arise. However, Salve argued that a situation could arise where the final version of a money bill differs from what the Governor initially recommended, thus warranting the Governor to withhold assent.

Several BJP-ruled states defended the autonomy of Governors and the President in granting assent to state bills, arguing that courts cannot grant assent in the name of "deemed assent". They maintained that the constitutional scheme vests the power to accord assent solely with the Governors or the President.

The Supreme Court also raised concerns about potential delays in the assent process, asking whether the court should remain powerless if a bill passed in 2020 still awaits assent in 2025. Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the Madhya Pradesh government, suggested that such matters are best left to Parliament to decide.

The hearing also touched upon the April 8 ruling, where the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to deem 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly as assented to, due to prolonged delays. This ruling has added another layer of complexity to the debate surrounding the powers of the Governor and the President in granting assent to state bills. The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, will continue the hearing to further examine these critical constitutional questions.