THE SUPREME COURT WILL pronounce today its advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether courts can prescribe timelines for Governors and the President while acting on Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. These provisions empower the Governor to either grant assent, withhold assent and return a Bill to the legislature for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President — who in turn acts under Article 201.
President Droupadi Murmu, invoking Article 143(1), referred 14 questions to the Court on May 15, 2025. Key issues include: whether judicially mandated timelines can be read into Articles 200 and 201; whether “deemed assent” is constitutionally valid; whether such directions violate separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary; the justiciability of gubernatorial discretion; the Court’s power to intervene before a Bill becomes law; and whether Article 142 can override constitutional silences.
President Droupadi Murmu, invoking Article 143(1), referred 14 questions to the Court on May 15, 2025.
The reference stems from the Court’s April 8, 2025 judgment (Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan), which held that if a Governor chooses not to give assent to a Bill presented to him after being passed by the State legislature, and withholds assent then he must return the Bill to the State legislature with a message (giving reasons) for reconsideration within three months. If the Bill is re-enacted and re-presented to the Governor, assent must follow forthwith, within one month.
The top court, by its April 8 judgment, further stated that if the Governor decides to reserve a Bill for consideration by the President, on the advice of the Council of Ministers, such action must be taken immediately, and no later than one month. However, in a situation where the Governor chooses to reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President contrary to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, he would do so within three months.
The Court also held that if the President withholds assent or delays action on a reserved Bill beyond a reasonable period (three months), the State may approach the Supreme Court and seek a writ of mandamus. Any further delay must be accompanied by written reasons.
On “deemed assent”, the Court noted that the Tamil Nadu Governor had kept ten Bills pending for an unjustifiably long time, disregarding binding precedents, including its November 10, 2023, decision relating to the Punjab Governor, who too was dragging his feet and withholding assent to four Bills. To remedy this constitutional paralysis, the Court declared all ten Bills “deemed to have been assented” on November 18, 2023, the date they were re-presented to the Governor after reconsideration by the State legislature.
Across ten days of hearing, the Union Government argued that Article 200 permits the Governor to withhold assent indefinitely, relying on the phrase in Article 200 of the Constitution: “The Governor shall declare either that he assents… or withholds assent… or reserves the Bill.” It contended that gubernatorial action forms part of the legislative process and is therefore beyond judicial scrutiny until after a law is assented to and notified. Reading timelines into Articles 200/201, it said, would amount to judicial overreach and a breach of separation of powers.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central Government, maintained that both the executive and legislature are equal custodians of the Constitution, and that courts cannot direct a “co-ordinate constitutional authority” such as the Governor. He also portrayed the Governor as a representative of the Union, embodying the collective will of the nation, unlike the State Government, which represents only its territorial electorate.
The Constitution Bench — Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar — repeatedly stressed that while it respected separation of powers, it could not remain a “mute spectator” if a Governor frustrated the democratic will of the legislature.
CJI Gavai told the Solicitor General, “I am a strong believer in the doctrine of separation of powers. Judicial activism has to be there. If one wing of the State fails to discharge its duties, would the Court — custodian of the Constitution — be powerless and sit idle?”
Senior lawyers supporting the reference, while interpreting Article 200, argued that beyond the three options the Governor has under Article 200, he has the fourth power of burying a Bill by withholding assent indefinitely.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani warned that prescribing timelines would create an “assent jurisprudence”, which, in his view, would distort Article 200 and undermine the Governor’s constitutional discretion.
However, those favouring the timelines set by the April 8 judgment opposed the Presidential Reference, stating that it was not maintainable. They argued that whatever may be the outcome of the Presidential Reference, it would have no bearing on the April 8 judgment.
The reference was triggered by the April 8 judgment that came on the Tamil Nadu government’s Article 32 petition, which asserted that the Governor had failed to act on 12 Bills passed between January 13, 2020, and April 28, 2023, despite assuming office in November 2021. His prolonged inaction until October 2023 compelled the State to move the Supreme Court.
