Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said Governor delays are no longer unchecked, calling the Presidential Reference verdict a 100% win for the States. Speaking to the media, he noted it lets States approach the Court over any inordinate delay by a Governor
The advisory opinion issued by the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court has been positively received by the states that approached the Court concerning alleged political delays by Governors.
In an interview with media, senior advocate and parliamentarian Kapil Sibal, who represented West Bengal in the Supreme Court, declared the verdict a 100% win for the states.
Sibal pointed out that while the Court invalidated the timeline established by the Tamil Nadu verdict, it has opened the possibility for states to challenge inaction by a Governor in cases of “inordinate delay.”
He explained,
“Now there is the possibility of the state going to court, making the Governor a party, and asking why a bill has been withheld even after three, four, or five years.”
According to Sibal, instead of adhering to a fixed timeline set by the two-judge bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, the Court can now evaluate each situation involving significant delay on a case-by-case basis.
He suggested that this opinion may influence how Governors act going forward.
He stated,
“It’s for the simple reason that the Court has now held constitutionally that the Governor has only three options, not four. The argument of the Union of India, made by the Attorney General and Solicitor General, that the Governor has untrammeled power to withhold consent, has been rejected,”
DMK MP and senior lawyer P Wilson also praised the opinion as a significant victory. The DMK and Tamil Nadu government had participated in the presidential reference.
Wilson said,
“This opinion and advice of the Supreme Court surely doesn’t hurt our rights. The Supreme Court hasn’t revoked the previous order on the timeline. It is not possible to revoke it. This is only an advisory opinion by the Supreme Court,”
He also emphasized that the April verdict concerning the timeline for decision-making had already been implemented.
The DMK leader added,
“The Governor has to work within the framework of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has advised that if the Governor doesn’t act within a reasonable time, states can approach courts. Please don’t call this a judgment; this is only an opinion of the Supreme Court,”
The ruling, delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, reaffirms the principle of separation of powers and the independence of constitutional functionaries.
The Presidential Reference followed the April 8, 2025 Supreme Court ruling, which held that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on bills passed by State legislatures. While Article 200 does not specify a deadline, the Court emphasized that Governors must act within a reasonable time and cannot stall the democratic process.
The Court also clarified that under Article 201, the President must decide on reserved bills within three months, and in case of delay, reasons must be recorded and communicated to the concerned State.
President Droupadi Murmu subsequently sought clarification on whether judicially imposed timelines or the concept of deemed assent could be applied to Governors or the President, raising 14 key questions under Article 143 of the Constitution.
The 14 key questions raised by the President are:
- “What are the constitutional options before a governor when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available to him when a bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?”
- “Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?”
- “Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?”
- “In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a bill for the President’s assent or otherwise?”
- “Are decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior to the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?”
- “Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by President/Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is a law made by the state legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In view of the proviso to Article 145 of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five judges?”
- “… the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India are limited to matters of procedural law, or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions/passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?”
- “Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union government and the state governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?”
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India
SPL. REF. No. 1/2025
Questions referred by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution:
Read Special Reference
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
