A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, none of which claimed to be the sole author but instead presented it as ‘the opinion of the court’, opined that the apex court cannot fix deadlines for governors and the President. To deal with state bills Under articles 200 and 201.
However, the bench clarified that the Governor cannot exercise his discretion to deliberately resort to “prolonged and evasive constitutional inaction” to frustrate the will of the people as expressed through proposed laws passed by the state legislatures.
Presidential Reference Hearing Update – November 20, 2025
Here’s how a bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gava, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, answered 14 questions from President Draupadi Murmu in a 111-page opinion in a reference issued by it on May 13, 2025.
The reference under Article 143 of the Constitution came only a month after a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in a judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case on April 8, removed the constitutional silence by setting specific time limits for Governors and the President to give assent, withhold assent or reserve for further consideration state bills under Articles 200 and 201.
1. When a bill is presented before the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, what are the constitutional options before him?
The Governor has three constitutional options under Article 200, namely giving assent, reserving the bill for the consideration of the President, or withholding assent and returning the bill to the Legislature with comments. The first provision of Article 200 deals with the substantive part of the provision, and the fourth restricts existing options rather than introducing alternatives. Relevantly, the third option – withholding assent and returning with comments – is available to the Governor only when it is not a money bill.
2. Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice given by 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?
The Governor has the discretion to choose among these three constitutional options and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising his functions under Article 200.
3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor justified under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
The discharge of the Governor’s functions under Article 200 is not justified. The court cannot review the merits and demerits of such a decision. However, in catastrophic circumstances of prolonged, vague and uncertain inaction, the Court may issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to discharge his function under Article 200 within a reasonable time period, without any comment on the merits of the exercise of his discretion.
4. Whether Article 361 of the Constitution of India is a blanket bar on judicial review in respect of the functions of the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Article 361 of the Constitution imposes a complete ban on judicial review in respect of subjecting the Governor personally to judicial proceedings. However, this cannot be relied upon to negate the limited scope of judicial review that this Court has the power to exercise under Article 200 in the event of prolonged inaction by the Governor. It is clarified that while the Governor continues to enjoy personal immunity, the constitutional office of the Governor is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
5. In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits and manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can time limits be imposed and manner of exercise prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit and the manner in which the power is to be exercised by the Governor, it would not be appropriate for this Court to judicially prescribe a time limit for the exercise of powers under Article 200.
6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President justified under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?
For the same argument put forward in respect of the Governor, the assent of the President under Article 201 is also not justified.
7. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit and manner of exercise of powers by the President, can the time limit and manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?
For the same reasons stated in the context of the Governor under Article 200, it is made clear that the President also cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines in the discharge of functions under Article 201.
8. In the light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek the advice of the Supreme Court through a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the assent or otherwise of the President?
In our constitutional scheme, the President is not required to seek the advice of this Court by way of reference under Article 143 every time a Governor reserves a Bill for the assent of the President. The subjective satisfaction of the President is sufficient. If there is a lack of clarity, or the President requires the advice of this Court on a Bill, it can be referred under Article 143, as has been done on several previous occasions.
9. Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India respectively, justified at the stage before the law is enacted? Are the courts, in any way, permitted to adjudicate on the contents of a Bill before it becomes law?
The decisions of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 respectively are not justified at the stage before the law comes into force. It is unacceptable for the courts to make judicial decisions on the content of a bill, in any way, before it becomes law. Relevantly, the discharge of its role under Article 143 is not a ‘judicial decision’.
10. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and orders of the President/Governor be superseded in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?
The exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of the President/Governor cannot be substituted in any manner under Article 142, and we clarify that the Constitution, particularly Article 142, does not even allow the concept of ‘deemed assent’ of Bills.
11. Whether a law made by the State Legislature is a law enforceable without the consent of the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Question 11 is answered in accordance with our opinion given on Question 10, namely, that there is no question of the operation of a law made by the State Legislature without the consent of the Governor under Article 200. Under Article 200 the legislative role of the Governor cannot be replaced by any other constitutional authority.
12. Keeping in view the provisions of Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any Bench of this Honorable Court to first decide whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature that it involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and not mandatory to refer the same to a Bench of not less than five Judges?
We have already indicated in our opinion that Article 145(3) and Question 12 relating to the composition of the Benches hearing cases of constitutional importance in this Court are irrelevant to the functional nature of this reference, and are returned unanswered.
13. Whether the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India are limited to matters of procedural law or does Article 142 of the Constitution of India extend to issuing directions/passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with the existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or applicable law?
We have also indicated in our opinion that Question 13 relating to the power under Article 142 is extremely broad, and not possible to be answered in a definite manner. Our opinion on the scope of Article 142 in the context of the functions of the Governor and the President has already been answered as part of Question 10.
14. Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Central Government and State Governments other than suits under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?
Question 14 – relating to the jurisdiction of this Court to resolve disputes between the Union and State Governments outside Article 131 – has also been found irrelevant to the functional nature of the reference and is therefore returned unanswered.
published – November 20, 2025 12:24 PM IST
