New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said governors were expected to act within “reasonable time” even if the term “as soon as possible” were not there in Article 200 that governs powers to assent to bills passed by the state legislature.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai, hearing arguments on the eighth day on the presidential reference, whether the court could impose timelines for governors and President to deal with bills passed by assemblies, reiterated it would only interpret the Constitution and not examine facts of individual cases.

Article 200 governs powers of Governor regarding bills passed by the state legislature, allowing them to either assent to the bill, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration or reserve the bill for the consideration of President.

The first proviso of Article 200 says Governor may, as soon as possible, after the presentation to him of the bill for assent, return the bill, if it is not a money bill, to the house for reconsideration and shall not withhold the consent after the assembly reconsiders and sends it back to him.

The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, was urged by senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the Punjab government, that the framers of the Constitution put "as soon as possible" in Article 200 and there was no fetters for the court in setting the timeline of three months for grant of assent to bills.

“Even if the term ‘as soon as possible’ were not there, the Governor was expected to act within reasonable time,” the bench said.

Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, said former state Governor Arif Mohammad Khan had followed a practice of sending bills to the ministries concerned for briefing him whenever he received them.

“We will not be deciding individual matters,” the CJI said.