INTRODUCTION
A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, (2025) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 770, pronounced its ruling as the Opinion of the Court with none of the judges claiming sole authorship in which it was held that the apex court cannot fix timelines for Governors and the President to deal with State Bills under Articles 200 and 201.
BACKGROUND
The Supreme Court pronounced its opinion on 20 November 2025 in the reference made by the President of India, Smt Droupadi Murmu under Article 143, raising 14 questions related to the timelines for granting assent to Bills by the President and the Governor under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar heard the matter for ten days. The Presidential reference was made in May, soon after the judgment delivered by a two-judge bench in The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr, 2025 INSC 481, which laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to act on Bills.
During the hearing, the Court clarified many times that it won’t be sitting in appeal over the TN Governor judgment and that it will only answer the Constitutional questions. States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal and Punjab raised objections to the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the questions were already answered in the TN Governor judgment.
KEY POINTS
- The constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India includes giving assent to the bill, withhold assent or reserve for the President’s assent. Withholding assent must be accompanied by the returning of the Bill to the Assembly as per the first proviso to Article 200. To permit the Governor to withhold the Bill without returning it to the house will derogate the principle of federalism.
- To the question of whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200, the Court opined that the Governor enjoys discretion under Article 200, as indicated by the use of the words “in his opinion” in the second proviso of Article 200
- Further, the discharge of Governor’s functions under Article 200 is not justiciable. The Court cannot interfere into the decision so taken. However, in a glaring circumstance of prolonged inaction the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his functions under Article 200 within a reasonable time period without making any observation on the merits of the exercise of the discretion.
- It was observed that Article 361 is an absolute bar on judicial review. However, it cannot be used to negate the limited scope of judicial review that this Court is empowered to exercise in cases of prolonged inaction by the Governor under Article 200. While the Governor enjoys personal immunity, the office of the Governor is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction.
- Most importantly, it was observed that the text of Articles 200 and 201, has been framed in such a manner, so as to provide a sense of elasticity, for constitutional authorities to perform their functions. The imposition of timelines would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution so carefully preserves.In the absence of a Constitutionally prescribed time limit, the Court cannot prescribe a timeline for the exercise of powers under Article 200. For similar reasoning as held for the Governor, the President’s assent under Article 201 is not justiciable.
- Further, The President is not required to seek the advice of the Court every time a Bill is reserved by the Governor. The subjective satisfaction of the President is sufficient. If there is a lack of clarity or need for advice, the President may refer. The decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, are not justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force. Bills can be challenged only if they become the law.
- It was reiterated by the Court that the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/ by the President / Governor cannot be substituted by the Apex Court in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It was clarified that the Constitution, specifically Article 142, does not allow the concept of “deemed assent” of Bills.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Governor can’t be made personally liable for his decisions, however, the constitutional courts can scrutinise his decisions. However in no case can a time limit be slapped on a Governor by the Court except for telling him to take a decision within a reasonable time. Any imposition of a time limit upon a Governor or a President would be unconstitutional. The opinion of the 5 Judge bench has opposed the deadlines issued by a 2 judge bench in the Tamil Nadu governor case that mandated time bound action under Article 200 and 201.
CONCLUSION
It could be concluded that this ruling has cleared the air when it comes to the powers of the President and the Governor under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution. This ruling is undeniably a monumental step in shaping Centre-state relations, particularly at a point when several state governments have accused governors of delaying assent to important legislations.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY : AMYUKTA RAJAGOPAL
