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"....