Today, on 20th November, As the Supreme Court delivers its advisory opinion in the Presidential Reference row, CJI Gavai says the Governor cannot return Bills without giving reasons, stressing that Article 200 demands constitutional balance, transparency and accountability in every decision made.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is continuing the hearing of the Presidential Reference on whether fixed timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President for giving assent to State bills.
The matter is being heard under Article 143 of the Constitution, after the Court’s earlier ruling in April 2025 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor.
A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, was addressing a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court began reading its opinion. The hearing concerned the question of whether the Supreme Court can impose timelines or prescribe how Governors and the President should act on State Bills placed before them for assent or sent for reservation.
While reading the opinion, the Bench noted the Union Government’s stand that there are four options under Article 200 of the Constitution: to assent, withhold, not assent and return, and to refer the Bill to the President.
The Opposition, however, said there are only three options: to assent, not assent, and to refer to the President.
CJI Gavai explained the need for communication and reasons between the Governor and the State legislature when a Bill is returned.
Reading the opinion, he said,
“The first provison of Article 200 initiating a conversation between the Governor and the State legislature is essential. It brings out the federalisitic nature of governance and in spirit of the balance. In short, the Governor cannot return Bills without saying why.”
The Chief Justice clarified the constitutional limits on the Governor’s powers. He emphasised that the Governor must normally follow the advice of the State Cabinet and cannot act freely unless the Constitution explicitly grants discretion.
He said,
“Ordinarily the Governor exercises his fucntions with aid and advice of the State Cabinet. Those functions in which he exercises discretion is specifically provided in the Constitution,”
Also added that ,
“Governor has discretion under Article 200, but cannot exercise unfettered powers.”
The Bench clarified that the Governor does not have the power to simply withhold a Bill without any explanation.
The court stated,
“The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the Governor has no option to withhold a Bill simplicitor. He has three options – grant assent, withhold assent with a reason and reference to President for consideration.”
The court explained that prescribing deadlines for the Governor or the President would violate the core structure of the Constitution.
It observed that introducing the concept of deemed assent for pending State Bills would amount to the judiciary taking over functions assigned to the Governor and the President.
The court said that drawing such timelines is anti-constitutional and goes against the doctrine of separation of powers.
The court clarified the limits of judicial review and the role of the President under Article 143.
The opinion noted,
“The President is not bound every time to refer State Bills, under Article 143, reserved for her consideration to the Supreme Court.”
However, the court made it clear that prolonged inaction or unexplained delays by a Governor would undoubtedly face judicial scrutiny. It added that one constitutional authority will not cross into the role of another, but every authority must function within the boundaries of the Constitution.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to seek clarification from the Supreme Court regarding whether judicial orders could impose timelines on the President’s discretion when dealing with state assembly bills.
Background
The Presidential Reference followed the April 8 Supreme Court ruling which held that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on Bills passed by State legislatures. Though Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Court said Governors must act within a reasonable time and cannot stall the democratic process.
The Court also held that under Article 201, the President must decide on Bills within three months. If delayed, reasons must be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.
The exact words of the April 8 judgment were:
“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.”
President Murmu later sent 14 questions to the Court, asking whether the judiciary could impose such deadlines and whether the concept of “deemed assent” was constitutionally valid.
While the Centre backs the Reference, arguing that Governors’ powers cannot be curtailed by judicial timelines, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have asked the Court to dismiss it as not maintainable.
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?”
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | SPL. REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A
Read Attachment- Questions referred by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution
Read Live Coverage
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills