Constitutional Law

In Re : Assent, Withholding Or Rservation Of Bills By Governor And President Of India 2025 INSC 1333

CaseCiter

20 Nov 2025 • 12 min read

💡

Can timelines be imposed on Governor's powers under Article 200?

Constitution of India - Article 200,201 - In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the Governor, it would not be appropriate for this Court to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200. -For similar reasoning as held with respect to the Governor, the President’s assent under Article 201 too, is not justiciable- For the same reasons as indicated in the context of the Governor under Article 200, it is clarified that the President, too, cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines in the discharge of functions under Article 201. (Para 165) - On the aspect of timelines, Paragraphs 260-261 of the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor, pertaining to the imposition of timelines on the Governor under Article 200 are erroneous - observations applicable to the President under Article 201, or conclusions thereof on this aspect, are merely obiter, and ought to be treated as such. (Para 114)

💡

Is the President required to seek advice of Supreme Court by way of reference under Article 143, every time a Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent?

Constitution of India - Article 200,201,143-- In our constitutional scheme, the President is not required to seek advice of this Court by way of reference under Article 143, every time a Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent. The ubjective satisfaction of the President is sufficient. If there is a lack of clarity, or the President so requires advice of this Court on a Bill, it may be referred under Article 143, as it has been done on numerous previous occasions.

💡

Are the decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force?

Constitution of India - Article 200,201,143 -The decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 respectively, are not justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force. It is impermissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law. Pertinently, discharge of its role under Article 143, does not constitute ‘judicial adjudication’. (Para 165)

💡

Is concept of ‘deemed assent’ of Bills valid?

Constitution of India - Article 200,142- The exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of the President/Governor cannot be substituted in any manner under Article 142, and we hereby clarify that the Constitution, specifically Article 142 even, does not allow for the concept of ‘deemed assent’ of Bills- The Governor’s legislative role under Article 200 cannot be supplanted by another constitutional authority. (Para 165)

💡

What are the three constitutional options before Governor under Article 200?

Disclaimer: This is an AI Generated Image. Cross check it with our notes & original judgment.

Constitution of India - Article 200,201 - The Governor has three constitutional options before him, under Article 200, namely - to assent, reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President, or withhold assent and return the Bill to the Legislature with comments. The first proviso to Article 200 is bound to the substantive part of the provision, and restricts the existing options, rather than offering a fourth option. Pertinently, the third option – to withhold assent and return with comments – is only available to the Governor when it is not a Money Bill- The Governor enjoys discretion in choosing from these three constitutional options and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, while exercising his function under Article 200.(Para 165)

💡

Is the discharge of the Governor’s function under Article 200, is not justiciable?

Constitution of India - Article 32,226, 200,201 - The discharge of the Governor’s function under Article 200, is not justiciable. The Court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision so taken. However, in glaring circumstances of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite – the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his function under Article 200 within a reasonable time period, without making any observations on the merits of the exercise of his discretion.(Para 165)

💡

What is the scope of Article 361? Does it impose an absolute bar on judicial review w.r.t Governor?

Constitution of India - Article 361,200 - Article 361 of the Constitution is an absolute bar on judicial review in relation to personally subjecting the Governor to judicial proceedings. However, it cannot be relied upon to negate the limited scope of judicial review that this Court is empowered to exercise in situations of prolonged inaction by the Governor under Article 200- While the Governor continues to enjoy personal immunity, the constitutional office of the Governor is subject to the jurisdiction of this court. (Para 165)

💡

When a Bill is returned to the Governor can he refer it to the President for his consideration?

Constitution of India - Article 200.201 - When the Bill is returned to the Governor, he is still left with two options – either to grant his assent, or to refer it to the President for his consideration. This power to reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration, is irrespective of whether the Bill is returned by the Legislature in its amended or unamended form. (Para 99)

💡

Does Supreme Court, under Article 143, have the power to overrule a previous view?

Constitution of India - Article 143- We find that the reasoning of majority in the 7-judge bench decision of In Re: Special Courts Bill is compelling, insofar as it holds that our opinion may even go so far as to “overrule, if necessary”, the view taken earlier by this very Court. Pertinently, the Court in Natural Resources Allocation, reiterated that this Court has the power to overrule a previous view. (Para 20) “Sitting in appeal” would mean the variation, or vacation of the operative order in a concluded lis - Article 143 cannot be invoked to overturn a concluded adjudication inter-se parties, but this cannot be conflated with the authority of this Court to answer general questions of law referred to it by the Hon’ble President, that hold constitutional importance. (Para 27)

💡

Under Article 143, can Supreme Court decline to answer a question raised in the reference?

Constitution of India - Article 143- A reference can be found to be maintainable, yet, this Court, upon analysing the issues and after careful consideration, may still conclude that it would be in the larger interest, to decline to answer a question (or questions). The discretion that is exercisable to decline answering a question when it is over broad, superfluous, political, or not serving any constitutional purpose – undoubtedly remains. (Para 29)

💡

Is there a particular format prescribed for reference under Article 143?

Constitution of India - Article 143- There is neither a particular format prescribed, nor a specific pattern while framing a reference. A reference is certainly not to be returned unanswered, on either of these counts, and rather require “appropriate analysis, understanding and appreciation of the content or the issue on which doubt is expressed, keeping in view the concept of constitutional responsibility, juridical propriety and judicial discretion”.

💡

Is Federalism part of basic structure? What is the nature of Indian federalism?

Federalism - Federalism is part of the basic structure or that it is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. (Para 56) Nature of Indian federalism- States are entitled to determine the legislative policy within the legislative spheres constitutionally allotted to them subject to the constitutional provisions and framework. What can be observed is that this Court’s understanding of the nature of Indian federalism is not unidimensional. Rather, the court has consciously adapted its view of the nature of federalism under the Constitution and tailored its judgments to suit the organic needs of the Constitution. It would be an error to conclude that the Court has shifted away from earlier approaches on federalism and adopted new ones. It has only analyzed the varied constitutional questions posed before it from different perspectives and commented on aspects of Indian federalism. No one description - federal, quasi federal, federalism with unitary bias, pragmatic federalism, cooperative federalism or asymmetrical federalism, captures the nature of Indian federalism in its entirety, but each contributes to a unique perspective of understanding the nature of Indian federalism. (Para 63)

💡

Does Article 200 confer discretionary powers on the Governor?

Constitution of India -Article 163, 200- Article 200 of the Constitution confers discretionary powers on the Governor. (Para 73)Governor has no option to withhold a Bill simpliciter. Therefore, it is not that the discretion so conferred, allows a situation wherein the Governor could frustrate a Bill in perpetuity. The three clear options that he has, is to grant assent, withhold assent and return the Bill to the legislature for reconsideration, or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President, and he can exercise his discretion in choosing any of these three options, having given due regard to the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers, and keeping in mind his duty – to protect and defend, the Constitution. (Para 97)

💡

Can Article 142 be invoked to achieve results that are contrary to the Constitution, or statutory provisions?

Constitution of India -Article 142- Article 142 cannot be invoked to achieve results that are contrary to the Constitution, or statutory provisions. (Para 120)

In Re - Assent, Withholding Or Reservation Of Bills By Governor And President Of India 2025 INSC 1333

In Re - Assent, Withholding Or Reservation Of Bills By Governor And President Of India 2025 INSC 1333.pdf

903 KB

Question Referred to the Supreme Court	Supreme Court's Opinion (Answer)
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 Governor has three constitutional options under Article 200: 1) to grant assent; 2) to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President; or 3) to withhold assent and return the Bill to the Legislature with comments. The first proviso restricts existing options and does not offer a fourth option. The option to withhold assent and return the Bill with comments is only available when it is not a Money Bill.
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?	The Governor enjoys discretion in choosing from these three constitutional options and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising this function under Article 200.
3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?	The discharge of the Governor’s function under Article 200 is not justiciable, and the Court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision taken. However, in glaring circumstances of prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction, the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his function under Article 200 within a reasonable time period, without making observations on the merits of the exercise of his discretion.
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 is an absolute bar on judicial review in relation to personally subjecting the Governor to judicial proceedings. However, it cannot be relied upon to negate the limited scope of judicial review (for prolonged inaction) that the Court is empowered to exercise. The constitutional office of the Governor is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
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?	In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, it would not be appropriate for this Court to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200.
6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?	For similar reasoning as held with respect to the Governor, the President’s assent under Article 201 is not justiciable.
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?	For the same reasons indicated for the Governor under Article 200, the President cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines in the discharge of functions under Article 201.
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?	The President is not required to seek advice of this Court by way of reference under Article 143 every time a Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent. The subjective satisfaction of the President is sufficient. A reference under Article 143 may be utilized if there is a lack of clarity or if the President so requires advice on a Bill.
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?	The decisions of the Governor and President are not justiciable at a stage anterior to the law coming into force. It is impermissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law. Discharge of the Court’s role under Article 143 does not constitute ‘judicial adjudication’.
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?	The exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of the President/Governor cannot be substituted in any manner under Article 142. Article 142 does not allow for the concept of ‘deemed assent’ of Bills.
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?	There is no question of a law made by the State Legislature coming into force without assent of the Governor under Article 200. The Governor’s legislative role under Article 200 cannot be supplanted by another constitutional authority.
12. 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 question is irrelevant to the functional nature of this reference, and is returned unanswered.
13. Do the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions /passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?	The question is overly broad, and not possible to answer in a definitive manner. The opinion on the scope of Article 142 in the context of the functions of the Governor and President has already been answered as part of Question 10.
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 question is irrelevant to the functional nature of the reference and hence returned unanswered.

Suggested Readings: