The Supreme Court Constitution Bench Today (Aug 20) heard a crucial Presidential reference on whether Governors and the President can delay or withhold Bills passed by State legislatures indefinitely. Key debates focus on the interpretation of Article 200 and whether judicial timelines can restrict constitutional powers.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench on Wednesday continued hearing the crucial Presidential reference on the powers of Governors and the President to grant or withhold assent to Bills passed by State legislatures.
The case, which has triggered sharp debates on the balance of power in Indian federalism, revolves around the meaning of “withhold” in Article 200 of the Constitution and whether Governors can sit on Bills indefinitely.
The reference was made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) after the Court’s April 2025 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case, which held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay action on Bills and must decide within a reasonable time.
That ruling also introduced the idea of “deemed assent” in cases of delay, a concept now under challenge.
A five-judge Bench led by CJI BR Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, is examining 14 constitutional questions framed by the President.
Governor’s Options Under Article 200
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that the Governor enjoys four distinct options under Article 200: assent, withhold assent, refer the Bill to the President, or return it to the Assembly for reconsideration.
According to him, once the Governor chooses to send a Bill back under the proviso, the power to withhold assent no longer exists.
“Once I resort to the proviso, then the Governor loses the option to withhold at all,” Mehta submitted.
The Chief Justice, however, pointed out:
“If the Assembly passes the Bill again and resends it, the Governor is bound when the assembly sends it back… reiterates.”
Mehta disagreed, contending:
“No… either I grant assent or refer it to the President.”
This prompted Justice Surya Kant to note that such an interpretation could make two other constitutional provisions redundant.
Mehta responded: “Quite the opposite.”
Can Withholding Be Permanent?
A key question was whether the Governor’s decision to withhold assent can be permanent. Justice Kant directly asked whether the Governor could exercise one option after already exercising another.
Mehta replied in the negative, clarifying:
“First option is to assent. Then withhold, and it is permanent. Else, refer to the President. The last option is to send it to the assembly, saying this provision is repugnant, and then the Governor can send it to the President again.”
This led Justice Kant to remark that if permanent withholding is accepted, the other two options effectively become meaningless.
Punjab Judgment Under Scrutiny
The Bench also discussed the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in the Punjab Governor’s case, where the Court had interpreted the Governor’s powers.
Mehta argued that the judgment ignored binding precedents of larger benches:
“Yes, nothing at all.”
The CJI summarised Mehta’s position: the Governor could withhold in two ways — either by returning it to the Assembly and then being bound by its reiteration, or by permanently withholding.
Mehta confirmed this interpretation, stressing that in some cases,
“Presidential assent is mandatory. In such a situation the Governor has no choice.”
Judicial Review and Separation of Powers
The Bench, however, expressed concerns that allowing indefinite withholding would paralyse the legislative process.
Justice PS Narasimha noted that judicial review is necessary because unchecked discretion
“becomes counterproductive to the powers of the Governor and the legislative process also.”
The CJI also reminded that interpretation cannot remain static. Referring to the Court’s recent Telangana judgment, he observed that constitutional framers had not anticipated every future scenario:
“See the Telangana judgment we delivered recently… that time it was not anticipated that Speakers will lead to situations where operation successful patient dead, but that happened.”
Mehta replied that institutional failures cannot justify encroachment:
“But that happens in court also… but when one body cannot function properly does not mean the other body encroaches on it.”
Governor: Postman or Constitutional Authority?
Another point of contention was whether the Governor acts as a mere messenger. The Solicitor General insisted:
“The post of the President is not of a postman and has to use wisdom.”
Similarly, he argued, a Governor represents the Union and is not a powerless figurehead:
“He is not a postman. He represents the Union… The one who is not directly elected is no less than someone who is directly elected.”
He clarified that his submissions were not about partisan politics:
“We are not saying the Governor can kill the Bill… Political parties will keep changing. I am on the constitutional interpretation of the term ‘withhold’.”
Historical Context
Mehta also drew on the Draft Constitution and the Government of India Act, 1935, to argue that historically Governors had the discretion to permanently withhold assent.
He pointed to Draft Article 147 and Section 75 of the 1935 Act, which explicitly allowed Governors to veto Bills by withholding assent.
But the Bench urged caution.
The CJI remarked:
“When we interpret Article 200, we should see direct judgments and not something from the Government of India Act. Now we have our own Constitution and judgments interpreting Article 200… just restrict yourself to Article 200 interpretation.”
Democratic Concerns
The CJI also pointed out recent instances where Governors’ discretion had led to political disputes:
“We have seen recent examples where Governors have used discretion leading to so many litigations.”
Mehta defended the system:
“Indian democracy is a mature democracy and this democracy has worked efficiently under the Constitution of India and I have seen it work perfectly during the COVID period. A few minor aberrations here and there cannot change it.”
At one point, lighter exchanges broke out, with the CJI joking:
“Mondays to Fridays we have 17 Supreme Courts (17 benches).”
Mehta responded:
“On the lighter side there are 32 Supreme Courts (the judges).”
The Road Ahead
The case raises fundamental questions about whether Governors can indefinitely withhold assent to Bills or must eventually give way once the Assembly reiterates its decision.
The Centre maintains that these are “high prerogative functions” not subject to judicial deadlines, while Tamil Nadu and Kerala argue that the reference itself is not maintainable.
The hearing will continue tomorrow.
YESTERDAY’S HEARING IN APEX COURT
Governor vs President Powers Clash in Supreme Court | Union Warns of “Constitutional Disorder” Over Bill Assent Deadlines
The Supreme Court continued hearing on Day 2 (Aug 19) of the Presidential Reference regarding the powers of Governors and the President in giving assent to state bills.
The courtroom witnessed intense exchanges as top lawyers debated whether the Court can prescribe strict timelines for granting assent, or if such judicial directions would create a “constitutional disorder.”
Senior Advocates K.K. Venugopal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the Reference itself was not legally maintainable, warning that it attempted to reopen issues already settled in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
On the other hand, Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the President’s query was advisory, not appellate, and that the Supreme Court had the power under Article 143 to clarify doubts on constitutional questions.
They were supported by senior lawyers Harish Salve, N.K. Kaul, and Maninder Singh.
Venugopal: Reference Bypasses Review
Venugopal began by stating that the Reference, in “substance and effect,” was simply a review filed by the Union Government and therefore not maintainable. He stressed that eleven out of fourteen questions raised had already been answered in the Tamil Nadu Governor judgement.
He referred to Article 200, noting that it does not provide any strict time limit for Governors to act. He cited earlier rulings, including the Telangana Governor case (2023), the Punjab Governor case (2023) and the Tamil Nadu case, which interpreted the phrase “as soon as possible.” He pointed out that only the Tamil Nadu ruling went so far as to impose fixed deadlines.
When Chief Justice of India (CJI) pressed him on whether those earlier benches had the required five judges under Article 145(3), Venugopal admitted they were benches of only two and three judges.
The CJI asked,
“So a five-judge Bench is bound by two judges?”
to which Venugopal replied,
“Unless you overrule it.”
He also reminded the Bench that while judgments under Article 141 are binding law, an opinion under Article 143 does not carry the same authority.
Singhvi: ‘This is an appeal, however nicely you couch it’
Appearing for Tamil Nadu, Singhvi argued that neither Article 143 nor an advisory opinion could replace review or curative powers as recognised in Rupa Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002). He warned that Tamil Nadu was the only state to get relief from the Court on this issue and no intra-court appeal could be allowed.
He stated that all questions in the Reference were already answered in the Tamil Nadu judgement, except questions 11, 12 and 14, which deal with unassented state laws, Article 145(3), and Union-State disputes under Article 131.
Quoting from the Cauvery Water Dispute (1991), he cautioned:
“Reopening a settled matter would cause a very serious subversion of Supreme Court integrity.”
He added,
“This is an appeal, however nicely you couch it….the entire concept of stare decisis will be completely subverted.”
Justice Narasimha intervened, saying,
“The adjudicatory decision stands on a completely different footing than advisory.”
Singhvi replied that while theoretically different, in practice the two overlapped, since once an advisory opinion is given, it is followed.
Justice Nath remarked,
“This is not right, you are presuming we will nullify the two-judge judgement.”
CJI Gavai clarified,
“We are expressing view of law and not the decision in Tamil Nadu.”
Reiterating, Singhvi said Article 143 does not give appellate powers, and warned:
“If your Lordships can find a way to not disturb the Tamil Nadu decision, I have no problem.”
Justice Narasimha added that even if relied on later, its binding nature could still be questioned.
Venkataramani: Tamil Nadu judgement rewrote Constitution
Attorney General R. Venkataramani attacked the Tamil Nadu judgement, calling it a “departure” from precedent. He argued that the Court entered the legislative field.
“The Court virtually said ‘leave it to us’, we will solve the issues and provide answers. That is not the constitutional scheme,”
-he said.
He stressed that Articles 200 and 201 form part of the Constitution’s basic structure, meant to check non-compliant laws. By imposing timelines and limiting Governor’s discretion, the judgement “rewrote” the Constitution.
He asked,
“Can the Court, under the guise of interpretation, take pen and paper and amend the Constitution?”
He argued the ruling
“virtually robbed the Governor and President of their application of mind.”
Criticising the use of Article 142, he said,
“Inherent powers cannot be exercised to build a new edifice where none exists.”
On the Court’s action of granting deemed assent to Tamil Nadu bills, he remarked:
“The Supreme Court cannot step into the shoes of the authority.”
Mehta: President seeking clarity, not appeal
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta insisted that the Reference was not an appeal but a genuine constitutional query.
“The President is seeking clarity on what to do when faced with a constitutional problem. What should the President or Governor do?”
-he asked.
He noted that even past judgements could be reconsidered in a reference.
“If this Court holds that the Tamil Nadu judgement is not correct law, that is not appellate power… it is an exercise of inherent powers,”
-he said.
Justice Kant reminded that the proceedings remained strictly advisory.
Mehta said the Tamil Nadu ruling had caused confusion:
“Am I bound by the three-month deadline? By directions under Article 200? Or should every State now rush to this Court?”
He traced Articles 111, 200 and 201 back to the Government of India Acts of 1915 and 1935, explaining that timelines were deliberately dropped by the Constituent Assembly.
“The idea was never to bind the highest constitutional functionaries. They are expected to discharge duties in accordance with law,”
-he argued.
On the special role of the President, Mehta said they swore to defend the Constitution, not just uphold it, and this could not be curtailed by judicial deadlines.
Other Senior Advocates
Senior Advocate N.K. Kaul pointed to the 2G case, noting that views on law can always be modified.
Harish Salve argued that under Article 141, Supreme Court judgements bind all courts but not the Supreme Court itself.
He warned against “putting the cart before the horse” when the Bench had not even answered the constitutional questions yet.
Maninder Singh added that the Court could still address the issues during the reference without technically overruling anything.
Read/Download Supreme Court’s Order of Day 2 (Aug 19):
Background of the Case
On 13 May 2025, President Droupadi Murmu invoked the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. This article empowers the President of India to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of public importance involving legal or factual questions.
The reference includes 14 questions concerning the constitutional powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, particularly in relation to granting or withholding assent to state legislation.
This significant constitutional development comes after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025).
These are the 14 key questions raised by the President:
- “What are the constitutional options before a governor when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is Governor bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?”
- “Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicially review in relation to the actions of 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 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 Governor?”
- “Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by 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 President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of President, is 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 Governor reserves a bill for President’s assent or otherwise?”
- “Are decisions of Governor and President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into 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 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 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 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?”
Tamil Nadu Governor Case: A Constitutional Milestone
In 2023, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court to challenge the indefinite delay by Governor R.N. Ravi in giving assent to 10 bills passed by the State Assembly. After repeated non-communication, the assembly re-passed the bills, which were later reserved for Presidential consideration.
On 8 April 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the Governor’s delay was “illegal” and “erroneous.”
The Court interpreted Article 200 and clarified that the Governor’s powers are restricted to:
- Granting assent,
- Withholding assent,
- Reserving the bill for the President’s consideration.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that once a bill is re-enacted by the state legislature, the Governor must grant assent, and cannot exercise an absolute veto.
Judicial Timelines and Accountability Introduced
The judgment established strict timelines for the Governor and the President:
- Within 1 month: If withholding or reserving a bill on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Within 3 months: If done against ministerial advice.
- Within 1 month: If the State Assembly re-passes the bill.
A 3-month deadline was also laid down for the President’s decision under Article 201. Any violation of these timelines is now subject to judicial review, enhancing transparency and accountability in the constitutional process.
The Court, invoking Article 142, went a step further to deem assent on the 10 pending bills, effectively nullifying the President’s prior assent to one of them. While the ruling was hailed for upholding legislative efficiency, critics raised concerns over a potential breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Presidential Reference Under Article 143: Seeking Clarity
In the wake of this ruling, President Murmu sent a formal reference to the Chief Justice of India, raising constitutional questions such as:
- Is judicial intervention valid when Articles 200 and 201 don’t prescribe timelines?
- Can the Governor or the President’s discretion under these articles be subject to judicial review?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to “deem assent”?
This marks a significant step in clarifying the scope of constitutional discretion and the role of judicial oversight in executive functions.
Explainer: Article 200 and the Governor’s Assent to State Bills
What is Article 200?
Article 200 of the Constitution of India deals with what happens when a State legislature passes a Bill and sends it to the Governor for approval. The Governor’s role is crucial because a Bill becomes law only after assent.
What options does a Governor have?
Under Article 200, the Governor can:
- Give Assent – The Bill becomes law.
- Withhold Assent – Refuse to sign the Bill (the current controversy is whether this refusal can be permanent).
- Reserve the Bill for the President – Send it to the President for decision, often required when the Bill conflicts with central laws.
- Return the Bill to the Assembly (except money bills) – Ask the legislature to reconsider. If the Assembly passes it again, the Governor is normally bound to give assent.
Why is this controversial?
- Governors withholding assent indefinitely has led to repeated clashes between State governments and Raj Bhavans.
- The Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling in the Tamil Nadu case said Governors must act within a “reasonable time,” and if they delay indefinitely, assent will be deemed granted.
- The Union government, however, argues that “withholding” means a permanent veto, and the Governor cannot be forced to sign once he refuses.
What is the Supreme Court deciding now?
A five-judge Constitution Bench is considering these questions after a Presidential reference:
- Can a Governor permanently refuse assent?
- Does “withhold” mean an absolute veto, or only a temporary pause?
- If a State legislature passes the Bill again, is the Governor bound to sign?
- Can courts review how long a Governor takes to act on a Bill?
Why does this matter?
The outcome will affect the balance of power between States and the Union. If Governors are allowed to veto permanently, it could give the Centre greater control over State legislation. On the other hand, restricting the Governor’s discretion may tilt power more heavily towards elected State legislatures.
This ruling could redefine Indian federalism and settle long-standing political flashpoints between States and Raj Bhavans.
CASE TITLE:
Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India
SPL.REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A
READ- Questions referred by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution
READ- Judgement of the Supreme Court in The State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Presidential Reference
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
