Recently, the Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion regarding the 16th Presidential Reference, elucidating the constitutional roles and limits of the Governor and the President in granting assent to State Bills.
In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Supreme Court previously established a three-month time limit for the Governor and the President to decide on pending State Bills. Following this, the President referred 14 questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking clarity on the powers outlined in Articles 200 and 201. This marked the 16th Presidential Reference since the Supreme Court's inception, and the Court responded with an advisory opinion.
Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President can refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion. Such references occur based on the aid and advice of the Union Council of Ministers. Article 145 mandates that a Presidential Reference must be heard by a bench comprising at least five judges.
The Supreme Court's opinion in a Presidential Reference:
The Governor has three constitutional options when dealing with State Bills:
The Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely or delay action on a Bill without justification.
While the Governor is not bound by the advice of the State Cabinet when deciding on assent under Article 200, prolonged inaction is subject to judicial review. Although courts cannot question the merits of the Governor's decision, they can intervene if the delay is deemed unreasonable.
The Supreme Court clarified that it cannot impose fixed timelines for the Governor or the President. The Constitution uses the phrase "as soon as possible," allowing flexibility based on circumstances.
The President's decisions regarding Bills reserved by the Governor are not subject to judicial review concerning their merits. Similarly, courts cannot impose timelines on the President for granting or withholding assent.
The President is not required to consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 for every reserved Bill, making such consultation discretionary.
The Court ruled that Article 142 cannot be utilized to override constitutional provisions or create concepts like "deemed assent," thus preserving the distinct roles of the Governor and President.
A Bill cannot become law without receiving assent from the Governor or, where applicable, the President. While the Governor enjoys personal immunity under Article 361, the constitutional conduct of the office remains subject to judicial scrutiny, and immunity cannot justify indefinite delays.
This ruling emphasizes that executive authorities cannot indefinitely delay State legislation while affirming that courts cannot compel decisions by imposing deadlines. It draws clear boundaries between executive discretion, constitutional procedure, and judicial oversight.
Previous bodies like the Sarkaria Commission and earlier judgments emphasized that Governors should generally act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, using discretion judiciously. However, the new advisory opinion treats actions under Article 200 as largely discretionary, potentially enabling Governors to obstruct State legislation. Despite earlier recommendations for enforceable deadlines, such as those from the Punchhi Commission, the Court has rejected these, weakening the progressive intent of the 2025 Tamil Nadu judgment.
Given that federalism is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, the Supreme Court's advisory opinion should not undermine the authority of elected State legislatures. Governors must wield their constitutional powers with responsible urgency, respecting democratic mandates while adhering to constitutional propriety.
Q1. What is the significance of the Supreme Court's opinion on Presidential Reference?
Answer: The Supreme Court's opinion clarifies the constitutional roles of the Governor and the President regarding State Bills, emphasizing that executive authorities cannot delay legislation indefinitely, while highlighting the discretionary nature of their powers.
Q2. Can the Governor indefinitely withhold assent to a State Bill?
Answer: No, the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent or delay action on a Bill. They must take one of three actions: grant assent, reserve it for the President, or return it with comments.
Q3. What role does Article 143 play in Presidential References?
Answer: Article 143 allows the President to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance, which is not legally binding but provides guidance.
Q4. Are the President's decisions on Bills subject to judicial review?
Answer: No, the President's decisions on Bills reserved by the Governor are not open to judicial review concerning their merits, maintaining the separation of powers.
Q5. What does the Court say about the timeline for the Governor's decision on assent?
Answer: The Supreme Court stated it cannot impose fixed timelines for the Governor's decision, emphasizing that the Constitution allows flexibility in such matters.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
