The Hindu: Published on 25th November 2025.
Why in News?
The Supreme Court of India has issued an advisory opinion under Article 143 on a Presidential reference. This opinion largely overturns an earlier two-judge Bench judgment of April 2025 that had set timelines and allowed ‘deemed assent’ to Bills withheld by Governors. The new advisory clarifies the extent of Governor’s powers on State Bills and questions judicial intervention in the legislative process.
Background: What led to the Presidential reference?
In State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025), a two-judge Bench:
Directed Governors and the President to decide on pending Bills within three months.
Held that their decisions were judicially reviewable.
Used Article 142 to grant ‘deemed assent’ to several Bills pending with the Governor.
This triggered a controversy. The Centre sought clarity on whether courts can:
impose time limits not mentioned in the Constitution.
make actions of Governors/President justiciable before Bills become law.
Use Article 142 to override constitutional powers of the Governor/President.
Thus, 14 questions were referred to the SC under Article 143.
What does the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion say?
Governor’s Options under Article 200
The Governor can:
(a) assent,
(b) withhold assent and return the Bill,
(c) reserve it for the President.
Governor’s Discretion:
The Governor is not bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers when choosing among these options.
Limited Justiciability
Decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are not judicially reviewable before the Bill becomes law, except when there is prolonged, unexplained delay, where a limited mandamus can be issued.
No Judicial Timelines:
Courts cannot prescribe timelines when the Constitution itself does not provide any.
No Deemed Assent:
Using Article 142 to create ‘deemed assent’ is unconstitutional. Courts cannot substitute the President/Governor’s role.
What are the key issues?
Federalism Concerns:
The decision contradicts earlier rulings (Shamsher Singh 1974, Nabam Rebia 2016) that required Governors to follow the Cabinet’s advice. By expanding discretion, the SC’s opinion may empower Governors to politically delay Bills, affecting the autonomy of elected State governments.
Lack of Time Limit:
Commissions like Sarkaria (1987) and Punchhi (2010) recommended limits (e.g., 6 months). Without timelines, Governors may block Bills indefinitely.
Contradiction with Progressive Interpretation:
The April 2025 judgment promoting constitutional accountability has been reversed, affecting democratic and federal balance.
Should Governors act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?
Ideally, yes. The Governor is a constitutional figurehead, not a parallel authority. Federalism is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and the Governor’s office must not act as a tool of the Centre to obstruct State legislation.
Way Forward:
