New Delhi, Aug. 21 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong reservations over the Union government's interpretation of the governor's powers under the Constitution, observing that if a governor could permanently withhold assent to bills passed by an elected state legislature, it would effectively leave the state government at the "whims and fancies" of a nominated office-bearer. The remarks came on the second day of hearings before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, with justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, on a presidential reference under Article 143. The reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu in May, seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling that had, for the first time, prescribed timelines for governors and the President to decide on bills pending before them. At the heart of Wednesday's arguments was the Centre's reading of the word "withhold" in Article 200, which solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued empowers a governor to reject a bill outright, leaving it to "fall through" without the option of being sent back to the legislature. Article 200 entails options for the governor to either grant assent to a bill passed by the state legislature, "withhold" assent, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President's approval "This power has to be exercised sparingly and rarely, but this power is there with him," submitted Mehta, adding that to deny such authority would reduce the governor to "a mere post office". The bench, however, pushed back. "If he does not send the bill again, he can still withhold a bill for time immemorial," the court pointed out, citing instances such as Tamil Nadu where bills re-enacted by the assembly had remained in limbo without any declaration from the governor. "Will we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in appeal over the decisions of an elected government? Then, a government elected with majority will be at the whims and fancy of the governor," it added. The bench also underscored that constitutional interpretation cannot remain "frozen in time" and must be informed by experience. "When the laws were made originally, ideal situations were contemplated.But interpretation is a process and it takes into account how these constitutional functionaries are working today." The bench cited the example of the anti-defection law under the 10th Schedule, where the speaker was originally seen as the best adjudicator, but decades of litigation had forced courts to re-examine that assumption. "The validity of a constitutional vision comes by its performance and experience,"said the bench, adding that the absence of legislative impact assessments during framing had left provisions such as Article 200 vulnerable to "complications and disputes". Mehta, however, insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in "exceptional circumstances", including on matters implicating national security or where a bill may violate fundamental rights. "His oath of defending the Constitution will require him to exercise this power in the rarest of rare cases," he said, while cautioning the court against turning the governor into a ceremonial figure. The bench repeatedly pressed the solicitor general on whether the power to "withhold" could be read as an indefinite veto, pointing out that the proviso to Article 200 itself prohibits a governor from withholding assent once a bill has been re-passed by the assembly. "If the meaning of withhold is to kill a bill, then how do we reconcile this with the proviso?" the court asked. During the daylong hearing, SG Mehta referred extensively to the Constituent Assembly debates to reinforce his point. The bench, however, posed a pointed question on whether governors in practice have lived up to the vision articulated by the framers of the Constitution, which emphasised harmony between the governor and the elected state government. "The first part of this speech you are reading says there should be harmony between the governor and the elected government. The second part says that the provincial government would be consulted for the appointment of the governor. Is it done? Whether the expectations expressed during the Constituent Assembly debates have been really realised?" it said. At one point, the bench maintained that the governor must "declare" or communicate his decision of withholding a bill to the state assembly, adding the central points of debate would be around the meaning of the term "withhold" and the timeline. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the President when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was "illegal"....