Introduction
In what is a large turn of events which has put into question the 2000 balance of power between the Union and the States the Supreme Court of India has brought up a presidential reference for hearing. This reference is a result of the 2025 April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case in which the Supreme Court put forward the issue of timely gubernatorial assent under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. That which has put forward this issue is also bringing into play a debate across the nation on federalism, constitutional interpretation and the scope of judicial authority.
Background
In 2025 April 8 a two judge panel of the Supreme Court looked at a issue which had been brought forward by the Tamil Nadu Government which took issue with the Governor’s inaction regarding many bills which had been put forth by the State Legislature. The ruling which came out was that indeed Governors are by constitution required to act in a reasonable time and do not have the right to delay the assent to bills for indefinite period. This was out to also prevent what we see as executive overreach and at the same time to promote efficiency in the legislative process.
In response to which the Union Government at the behest of the Cabinet asked President Droupadi Murmu to use Article 143(1) of the Constitution which in turn called upon the Supreme Court for its opinion on certain issues. Which included the issue of Courts’ authority to set time frames for executive assent and whether it can use Article 142 to pass a bill into law in case of executive delay.
Key Points at Issue
Judicial Authority: Can the Supreme Court fix time frames for assent to Acts which are in regard to the Governor as in Article 200 and President as in Article 201?
Separation of Powers: Does imposition of a deadline by the judiciary into the executive branch’s role constitute overreach?
Deemed Assent via Article 142: Can the Court exercise its great power to give assent to a bill which has seen undue delay?
Federal Structure: Does such action disrupt the balance between Centre and State in the case of opposition run States?
Constitutional Interpretation: How can we define “as soon as possible” exactly?
Recent Development
In 2025 on July 22’nd a 5 judge Constitution Board which is led by Chief Justice Vikram Nath brought forth the Union and all State Governments to put in their responses by July 29, 2025. Also that day we see the first hearing which is primary in nature and after which it is to present in August. The Court’s job is to determine if time lines for Governor and President’s assent can be made out by the judiciary and what do we have in terms of remedies if there is delay.
Political reactions were strong, with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin condemning the presidential reference as a threat to cooperative federalism and a tool which delays State policies.
Conclusion
This issue has wide reaching consequences for Indian constitutionalism which in turn plays out in the dynamic between the judiciary, executive and legislature. The Supreme Court in its coming judgment on Article 143 reference may put forth a final precedent which determines that which delays in the President’s assent to bills can be taken to court and thus remedied. That which the court decides will in all likelihood shape the future of the relationship between States and Centre and at the same time will either support or tie up judicial review of constitutional functionaries.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. PrimeLegall falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY AYUSHI TRIVEDI
