Presidential reference case: Everything you need to know about the Supreme Court judgement on timelines for acting on bills, deemed assent and more
The Supreme Court on Thursday (20th December) struck down the timelines it had previously set for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by state legislatures. The Constitution Bench held that prescribing rigid timelines or creating the idea of “deemed assent” amounts to overstepping judicial limits and interfering with the powers assigned to constitutional functionaries.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, ruled that its earlier judgment from April, which required Governors and the President to take decisions within a fixed period, was “incorrect” and violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.
The Court said that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the assent process for state Bills, deliberately use flexible languages like “as soon as possible”, the court cannot convert this into strict deadlines.
The Supreme Court also made it clear that the earlier concept of “deemed assent” which meant that a bill would automatically become law if the Governer of President failed to act in time, is unconstitutional. The Bench said this goes against the very structure of the Constitution, under which assenting to a Bill is a specific constitutional duty that cannot be bypassed or replaced by judicial orders.
This ruling came in response to a Presidential Reference filed by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1). She asked the Supreme Court to clarify whether the judiciary can impose timelines or create procedural rules for the Governor and President when the Constitution itself is silent.
The Supreme Court examined fourteen questions referred by the President.
1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
The Court clarified the Governor has three clear options. They can give assent to the Bill, return the Bill to the legislature with comments for reconsideration, or reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration. The Bench emphasised that the Governor cannot “withhold assent” and simply sit on the Bill. If they choose to withhold assent, they must return it to the state legislature.
2. Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by 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?
No. The Court said that under Article 163, the Governor acts on the Cabinet’s advice except in matters where the Constitution gives them discretion. Assent to Bills is one such discretionary function. If the Governor were bound by the Cabinet in this process, they would never be able to return a Bill, because no Cabinet would advise against its own legislation.
3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
The Supreme Court clarified that courts cannot question the merits of why a Governor took a particular decision. That means, courts cannot review the wisdom of the decision. However, the Supreme Court ruled that “prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction” is subject to judicial review. If a Governor sits on a Bill without taking any decision, the court can direct them to act.
4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Article 361 gives personal immunity to Governors and the President, meaning they cannot be sued personally. But the Court said this immunity does not stop courts from examining the office of the Governor if there is constitutional silence or inaction. The immunity belongs to the person, not the constitutional role.
5. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the 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 the Governor?
No. The Constitution uses the phrase “as soon as possible”, and the Court said this flexibility is intentional. The judiciary cannot turn this into a fixed timeframe of one to three months. The April 2025 judgment was therefore incorrect.
6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
The Court said the President’s decision on a Bill reserved for their consideration cannot be reviewed on merits. Much like the Governor, the President’s decision-making discretion cannot be questioned by courts, except in cases of undue delay.
7. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?
Again, the answer is no. The Supreme Court said it cannot prescribe deadlines for the President’s decision-making. Such timelines would interfere with constitutional design.
8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the 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 the Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent or otherwise?
No. The Court clarified that consulting the Supreme Court under Article 143 is completely discretionary. The President is not required to approach the Court for every Bill that is sent to them.
9. Are the decisions of the Governor and the 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?
No. Courts can review enacted laws, but not Bills. A Bill is not a law until it receives assent. So the Court cannot examine its contents at the pre-enactment stage.
10. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President/Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?
No. The Court made it clear that Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to do “complete justice”, cannot be used to override the Constitution. The idea of “deemed assent”, created by the April judgment, was rejected because it replaces the Governor’s constitutional role.
11. Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
No, A bill becomes a law only after assent is granted. Without that, it has no legal existence.
12. Is it mandatory for any Bench of the court to first decide whether the issues before it involve substantial questions of law that must be referred to a five-judge Bench under Article 145(3)?
The Court declined to answer. It said this question was irrelevant to the reference. Article 145(3) mandates that cases involving substantial interpretation of the Constitution be heard by at least five judges. The Court stated this query was irrelevant to the functional nature of the reference regarding legislative assent.
13. In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this Hon’ble 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 Court said the question was too broad but clarified one thing: Article 142 cannot be used to override provisions like Articles 200 and 201, which involve assent. The Governor’s constitutional role cannot be bypassed.
14. 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?”
The Court declined to answer this question. Article 131 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over disputes between the Centre and States. The Bench deemed this irrelevant to the specific issues regarding the Governor’s powers.
The background of the case
This reference to the Supreme Court came after President Droupadi Murmu, exercising the President’s power to consult the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, referred a list of 14 questions to the Court seeking its advisory opinion on them.
The controversy arose after a judgement delivered on 11th April by a two-judge Bench in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. That ruling had set strict timelines for Governors to act on Bills and held that “constitutional silence” could not be used to delay the legislative process.
The April judgment said that Governors must act within “a reasonable time” and cannot indefinitely sit on Bills passedgover by elected legislatures. While acknowledging that Article 200 does not specify a timeframe, the Court nevertheless imposed its own: one month in some situations and three months in others. It even introduced a concept of “deemed assent” if the Governor or President failed to act within this period.
The verdict also said that the President’s decision under Article 201 must not be indefinitely delayed and should normally occur within three months.
This prompted the President to refer fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, asking whether these directions were constitutionally permissible, and whether imposing timelines or creating procedural mechanisms where the Constitution is silent amounts to judicial overreach.
Why the Supreme Court reconsidered the earlier judgement
Following the April ruling, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, argued that the judiciart cannot direct a constitutional authority like the Governer in matters involving legislative discretion. Doing so, he said, would violate the principle of separation of powers.
He also offered a hypothetical situation to explain why discretion is necessary: what if a State legislature passes a Bill declaring that the State no longer wants to be part of India? In such a case, the Governor must have the power to refuse assent.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani also told the Court that it is not the judiciary’s role to rewrite or “improve” Article 200. The structure of the Constitution, he said, intentionally gives the Governor some independent judgment.
Because of these concerns, the Constitution Bench was formed to review the matter and provide clear answers.
News