In response to a Presidential Reference submitted by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 20) ruled that the judiciary cannot prescribe mandatory timelines for the President or Governors while deciding whether to grant assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201.

The Court further held that compelling “deemed assent” when no action is taken within a set time frame is fundamentally inconsistent with constitutional design and violates the separation of powers. Such a doctrine, the Court said, effectively usurps powers constitutionally vested in Governors.

However, the Court emphasized that Governors cannot indefinitely delay decisions. If the Governor’s prolonged or unexplained inaction effectively obstructs the legislative process, the Court may intervene in a limited manner, directing the Governor to act within a reasonable period—without examining the merits of the Bill itself.

A Constitution Bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar heard the matter for ten days before reserving judgment on September 11.

The President sought the Court’s opinion following the ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, where a two-judge bench had laid down timelines for the President and Governors to respond to Bills.

Below are the questions referred and the Supreme Court’s responses:

1. What choices does a Governor have under Article 200 upon receiving a Bill?

Answer:
A Governor may:
(a) grant assent,
(b) withhold assent (but must return the Bill to the Assembly as mandated by the first proviso), or
(c) reserve the Bill for the President.

The first proviso is not a separate option; it qualifies the “withhold assent” choice. The Governor cannot simply withhold assent without returning the Bill—doing so would undermine federalism. The Court rejected the Union’s contention that a Governor may withhold assent without returning the Bill.

2. Must the Governor act on ministerial advice regarding all options under Article 200?

Answer:
While the Governor generally functions on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, Article 200 contains an express discretionary element—evident from the phrase “in his opinion” in the second proviso.
Thus, the Governor has discretion to return a Bill or reserve it for the President.

3. Is the Governor’s use of discretion under Article 200 subject to judicial review?

Answer:
The merits of the Governor’s decision are not justiciable. However, if there is prolonged, unexplained, or indefinite inaction, courts may issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to decide within a reasonable timeframe—without commenting on the correctness of the decision.

4. Does Article 361 bar judicial review of the Governor’s actions under Article 200?

Answer:
Article 361 grants personal immunity to the Governor but does not shield the office from judicial scrutiny in cases of prolonged inaction. The Court may still exercise limited review to ensure constitutional functioning.

Questions 5, 6 & 7 (Grouped):

Can courts fix timelines or prescribe manner of exercise of powers under Articles 200 and 201?
Is the President’s discretion under Article 201 reviewable?
Can courts impose timelines on decisions by the President?

Answer:
No. The Constitution intentionally leaves these provisions flexible. Judicially imposed deadlines contradict the scheme of Articles 200 and 201. The doctrine of “deemed assent” is unconstitutional and amounts to courts taking over executive functions.

8. Must the President seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 whenever a Bill is reserved?

Answer:
No. The President is not required to seek judicial advice when a Bill is reserved for her consideration.

9. Can courts review the Governor’s or President’s decisions under Articles 200/201 before the Bill becomes law?

Answer:
No. Judicial review applies only after a Bill becomes a law. Courts cannot pre-examine the contents of a pending Bill.

10. Can courts replace or modify decisions of the President or Governor under Article 142?

Answer:
No. Article 142 cannot be used to override constitutional roles of the President or Governors.

11–14. Remaining Questions

11. A State law is not “law in force” until the Governor’s assent is received — not individually answered.
12. The proviso to Article 145(3) — not directly answered, deemed irrelevant.
13. Article 142 cannot be used to issue directions contrary to constitutional provisions — No.
14. Whether Article 131 is the exclusive route for Union–State disputes — not answered, found unnecessary.

Background and Arguments

During the hearings, the Bench repeatedly clarified that it was not re-hearing the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment but only addressing the constitutional questions posed by the President. Several States—including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal—objected to the reference, claiming the issues were already settled.

The Court questioned whether Governors could legally stall Bills by neither assenting nor returning them, warning that such a practice would place elected governments at the mercy of the Governor. The Bench also noted the need to avoid inflexible deadlines based on isolated incidents.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that courts cannot prescribe timelines, nor can they invoke “deemed assent,” as this would usurp constitutional authority. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta endorsed this view, contending that directing high constitutional authorities violates separation of powers.

Meanwhile, senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Dr. AM Singhvi, KK Venugopal, Gopal Subramanium and Arvind Datar supported judicial intervention in situations involving delay by Governors.
Harish Salve and Mahesh Jethmalani backed the Union government’s stand against judicially imposed timelines.

The case is titled:
IN RE: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India