IN ITS ADVISORY OPINION on a Presidential Reference, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today overruled its April 8 judgment and held that the President and Governors cannot be bound by judicially imposed timelines for acting on Bills presented for assent, their decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable, and the concept of ‘deemed assent” does not exist under the constitution as one constitutional authority cannot substitute the role and powers of another constitutional authority.
Emphasising that courts cannot prescribe “judicially mandated timelines,” nor invoke Article 142 to create “deemed assent,” the Bench—comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Chief Justice-designate Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Vikram Nath, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar—however clarified that courts may intervene in cases of “prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction,” to prevent constitutional standstill.
The Court reiterated that, “In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the Governor, it would not be appropriate for this Court to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200.” It added that for the same reasons, “the President, too, cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines in the discharge of functions under Article 201.”
It further held that decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 are not open to judicial scrutiny until after a law comes into force. Courts cannot examine the contents of a Bill or review the merits of the decision at a pre-enactment stage. The Court clarified that its exercise of advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 does not amount to “judicial adjudication.”
Addressing the scope of judicial review vis-à-vis immunity, the Court stated: “Article 361 of the Constitution is an absolute bar on judicial review in relation to personally subjecting the Governor to judicial proceedings. However, it cannot be relied upon to negate the limited scope of judicial review that this Court is empowered to exercise in situations of prolonged inaction by the Governor under Article 200. It is clarified that while the Governor continues to enjoy personal immunity, the constitutional office of the Governor is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.”
It further held that decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 are not open to judicial scrutiny until after a law comes into force.
Pronouncing the unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Gavai said, “The discharge of the Governor’s function under Article 200 is not justiciable. The Court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision so taken. However, in glaring circumstances of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite – the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his function under Article 200 within a reasonable time period, without making any observations on the merits of the exercise of his discretion.”
On “deemed assent,” the advisory opinion says, “We have no hesitation in concluding that the concept of deemed assent of pending Bills by the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, is virtually a takeover of the role, and function, of a separate constitutional authority. The reliance on Article 142, cannot lead to supplanting constitutional provisions itself.”
Reiterating the centrality of the Governor’s legislative role, the Court held: “There is no question of a law made by the State Legislature coming into force without assent of the Governor under Article 200. The Governor’s legislative role under Article 200 cannot be supplanted by another constitutional authority.”
Rejecting the Central government’s argument that the Governor had a “fourth option” to indefinitely withhold a Bill, the Court made it explicit: “The Governor has three constitutional options before him, under Article 200, namely – to assent, reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President, or withhold assent and return the Bill to the Legislature with comments.”
It clarified that the first proviso to Article 200 “restricts the existing options” and does not add a fourth. The third option—returning the Bill with comments—is unavailable for Money Bills.
The Bench also said that the Governor has discretion when choosing among these three options and is not bound by the Council of Ministers’ advice for this limited purpose.
The Presidential Reference was triggered by the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 judgment, which had laid down strict timelines for the Governor and the President to act on a Bill sent for assent.
The President had referred 14 questions under Article 143
The Court’s advisory opinion addressed 14 questions referred by President Droupadi Murmu on May 13, 2025, under Article 143(1), concerning the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. These included whether timelines could be read into the Constitution, the validity of “deemed assent,” the limits of judicial review, the separation of powers, and whether Article 142 could fill constitutional silences.
The Presidential Reference was triggered by the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 judgment, which had laid down strict timelines for the Governor and the President to act on a Bill sent for assent. The Court had held that if a Governor withholds assent to a Bill, he must return it with reasons within three months, and if the legislature re-enacts and re-presents the Bill, assent must follow within one month. It also ruled that when a Governor reserves a Bill for the President—whether on ministerial advice (within one month) or contrary to it (within three months)— it must be made within the stipulated time frame.
The April 8 ruling went further to hold that even the President cannot indefinitely delay action on a reserved Bill; if there is no decision within three months, the State may approach the Supreme Court for a mandamus, and any additional delay must be justified in writing. In the same judgment, the Court invoked the concept of “deemed assent” in the case of Tamil Nadu, noting that the Governor had allowed ten Bills to languish without action, despite earlier judicial directions in a similar Punjab case. To prevent a constitutional deadlock, the Court declared those ten Bills “deemed to have been assented” on November 18, 2023—the date they were returned after reconsideration by the Assembly.