Constitution does not prescribe time limits for the Governor or President to exercise their powers under these Article 200

Supreme Court Clarifies Governor’s Powers Under Article 200: Discretion Affirmed, Judicial Review Limited. Constitution Bench rules Governor has three options on Bills, discretion not bound by Council of Ministers’ advice; rejects judicial timelines and ‘deemed assent’ concept

In a landmark judgment delivered on November 20, 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India has provided a comprehensive opinion on the constitutional powers and functions of the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, addressing critical questions referred by the President under Article 143.

The judgment resolves a long-standing debate about the scope of the Governor’s discretion when a Bill is presented for assent, and the justiciability of such decisions. The reference was necessitated by confusion following divergent Supreme Court rulings, particularly after the recent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025.

Key findings of the Court include:

• 1. Three Constitutional Options for the Governor: The Governor has three constitutional choices when presented with a Bill under Article 200: (i) to assent to the Bill, (ii) to withhold assent and return the Bill to the Legislature with recommendations for reconsideration (only if the Bill is not a Money Bill), or (iii) to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President. The first proviso to Article 200 qualifies the power to withhold by requiring return with comments rather than simple withholding.

• 2. Governor’s Discretion and Independence from Council of Ministers: Contrary to arguments that the Governor must always act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the Court affirmed that the Governor enjoys constitutional discretion in exercising the options under Article 200. This discretion is not unfettered but is an essential safeguard to protect the Constitution and federalism. The Court emphasized that the Governor’s role is not merely ceremonial or a rubber stamp.

• 3. Rejection of Judicially Imposed Timelines and ‘Deemed Assent’: The Court rejected the imposition of fixed timelines on the Governor and President for exercising their powers under Articles 200 and 201, respectively. It held that the absence of timelines in these Articles was deliberate constitutional design, allowing flexibility to consider diverse contexts. Further, the Court disapproved the concept of ‘deemed assent’ arising from judicial orders, stating that such a doctrine is alien to the Constitution and violates the separation of powers by judicially usurping executive functions.

• 4. Justiciability of Governor’s and President’s Actions: The Court held that the decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable at the stage before a Bill becomes law. Judicial review can only be exercised after the Bill has been enacted as law. The Court cautioned against judicial interference in the legislative process at the preliminary stage, underscoring the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and federal balance.

• 5. Limited Judicial Review in Cases of Prolonged Inaction: While the merits of the Governor’s decision cannot be questioned in courts, the Court recognized that prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction by the Governor in assenting to Bills can invite limited judicial scrutiny. Courts may issue directions for the Governor to act within a reasonable time without dictating the manner of exercise of discretion.

• 6. Article 361 Immunity: The Court reaffirmed that Article 361 provides personal immunity to the Governor from being answerable to courts for acts done in office. However, this immunity does not bar courts from examining the validity of the Governor’s actions in exceptional cases, including mala fide conduct.

• 7. Role of President’s Satisfaction and Article 143 References: The President’s subjective satisfaction is sufficient for assenting to Bills reserved for his consideration. There is no constitutional mandate for the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 every time a Bill is reserved by the Governor. Such references remain discretionary.

• 8. Other Questions Declined: The Court declined to answer questions relating to the composition of benches under Article 145(3) and the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to resolve Union-State disputes outside Article 131, deeming them irrelevant to the functional nature of the reference.

The Court underscored the importance of a “dialogic process” embedded in Articles 200 and 201, reflecting the cooperative federalism and system of checks and balances envisioned by the Constitution. It emphasized that constitutional functionaries must engage in institutional dialogue rather than obstructionism, preserving the delicate federal balance.

This authoritative opinion seeks to dispel confusion, uphold the constitutional scheme, and ensure the smooth functioning of legislative processes in States, reinforcing the Governor’s role as a constitutional safeguard with discretion, but within responsible limits.

Statutory provision(s):  Article 143, Article 200, Article 201, Article 163, Article 361, Article 142, Article 168, Article 174, Article 198, Article 199, Article 207, Article 31A, Article 31C, Article 254, Article 288, Article 360, Article 145(3), Article 131

This judgment clarifies the constitutional framework governing the assent, withholding, reservation, and return of Bills by the Governor and President, reasserting their pivotal roles in India’s federal democracy while limiting judicial intrusion at the preliminary legislative stage.

In Re: Assent, Withholding Or Reservation Of Bills By The Governor And The President Of India, (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2811021