Bills sent to governors for clearance must be given assent by the “titular heads” immediately, Opposition-ruled states told the Supreme Court on Wednesday, The Hindu reported.

The governments of West Bengal, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh told a bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar that even the three-month deadline that the court had set in an April ruling may be too long.

Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh are ruled by the Congress, and West Bengal by the Trinamool Congress.

The bench has been hearing arguments on a reference made to the court by President Droupadi Murmu about its April 8 ruling that set timelines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures.

In July, the court had issued notice to the Centre and all state governments on the reference.

At the hearing on Wednesday, the three states said that the will of the public, which the proposed laws manifest, cannot be sacrificed on the altar of the whims and fancies of governors.

They told the bench that governors not acting on bills was a “quiet disguise” for denying assent, The Hindu reported.

If the Union government wanted states to presume that a high constitutional authority such as the governor would act with integrity while dealing with bills, the same courtesy must be extended to state Legislatures that are also high constitutional authorities, the three states said.

Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, noted that Article 200 of the Constitution required the governor to return a bill to a state Legislature “as soon as possible” in case he disagreed with it.

Article 200 outlines a governor’s powers regarding bills passed by a Legislature. A governor can either assent to a bill, return it for reconsideration or reserve it for the president’s consideration.

Sibal argued that “as soon as possible” would be interpreted as “forthwith or immediately”, The Hindu reported.

“‘Forthwith’ must apply to governors and president, who is actually the Union government, while dealing with grant of assent to proposed laws,” the newspaper quoted him as saying. “Bills cannot wait.”

Sibal said that the Union government had no business questioning the constitutionality of the state bills, adding that citizens could test the constitutionality of the draft laws in court once it is notified.

The advocate also highlighted Article 254(2) of the Constitution, which permits Parliament to neutralise an incompatible state law by “adding to, amending, varying or repealing” it, The Hindu reported.

Justice Kant said that the provision acted as a “second filter” on state bills.

“But prevention is better than cure, no?” Justice Nath asked in response.

Sibal also said that there was a presumption of constitutionality associated with bill passed by the Legislature, adding that references to the president by governors were rare instances in the past.

He argued that governors create conflict by sitting over bills for years together.

“Their doubts about the constitutionality of bills, especially in the case of re-passed bills, is bogey,” The Hindu quoted the advocate as saying. “The power given to governors to assent, withhold assent or refer state bills to the president under Article 200 are not discretionary choices, but constitutional routes.”

The Karnataka government, represented by advocate Gopal Subramanium, told the court that state Legislatures cannot allow other constitutional authorities to invade upon their legislative powers, the newspaper reported.

The Union government’s argument that the president and governors have wide discretionary powers was “fundamentally flawed”, he argued.

Subramanium also said that the principle of the Cabinet form of government, which is collectively responsible to Legislature, would be violated if the governor or president are given or endowed with any form of discretion, Bar and Bench reported.

He added that the submissions of the Union government seek to indirectly “abrogate the fulcrum” of the Constitution, which is the Cabinet form of government.

Advocate Anand Sharma, representing Himachal Pradesh, said that courts are the final arbiter when it comes to the Constitution and that is the strength of the republic.

The court’s April ruling came on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president.

The court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both provisions outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president.

The judgement had also introduced the concept of “deemed assent” in cases of prolonged inaction, allowing pending bills to be considered approved.

In May, Murmu made the reference to the court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with regard to its April 8 ruling.

Article 143(1) allows the president to ask for the opinion and the advice of the court on matters of legal and public importance.