1. Why was this Presidential Reference made?
The President of India sought the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 because serious disputes had arisen between State Governments and Governors regarding the passage of Bills. Articles 200 and 201—which govern the Governor’s and President’s assent—do not prescribe time limits and contain ambiguous wording. As a result, Governors in several States were alleged to be sitting on Bills indefinitely or using their discretion in a politically motivated manner. To prevent constitutional deadlock and clarify the correct legal position, the President referred fourteen questions related to the scope of gubernatorial power, discretion, timelines, and judicial review.
2. What does Article 200 actually allow a Governor to do?
Article 200 provides the Governor with options once a State Legislature passes a Bill and presents it for assent. The Governor may (1) grant assent, (2) withhold assent, or (3) reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration. The first proviso allows the Governor to return a non-money Bill for reconsideration with comments. The Supreme Court clarified that the power to “withhold” cannot be used independently. If the Governor chooses to withhold assent, he must simultaneously send the Bill back to the Legislature with reasons. Thus, the Court held that the Governor does not possess four powers—only three.
3. Is the Governor bound by the State Cabinet’s advice?
One of the major issues was whether the Governor must follow the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when choosing among the three options under Article 200. The Court held no. The Governor exercises constitutional discretion at this stage. However, this discretion is not absolute or arbitrary; it must be used to uphold the Constitution, maintain federal balance, and protect democratic processes. This means the Governor cannot act mechanically on the Cabinet's advice, but he also cannot misuse his discretion for political purposes.
4. What happens when a Bill is returned and re-passed?
If the Governor returns a Bill and the Legislature re-passes it (with or without amendments), the Governor must not withhold assent, but he can still reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration. The Court explained that this safeguard ensures that important constitutional concerns, such as federal issues or High Court powers, are not bypassed by amendments inserted during reconsideration.
5. Are the Governor’s and President’s decisions open to judicial review?
A crucial part of the Court’s opinion is that the merits of decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable. Courts cannot examine whether the Governor should have assented, withheld, or reserved the Bill. Judicial review becomes available only after the Bill becomes law. The Court warned that allowing review before assent would require courts to examine Bills before enactment, which contradicts India’s constitutional design and violates separation of powers.
6. Can the courts intervene at all?
Yes, but only to a limited extent. If a Governor fails to take any decision for an unreasonably long period, the Court can issue a limited mandamus, directing the Governor’s office to decide within a “reasonable time”. However, the Court cannot direct the Governor to choose any particular option. This ensures accountability without allowing judicial overreach into executive discretion.
7. Is there any concept of “deemed assent”?
The Court categorically rejected the idea of “deemed assent”—the argument that a Bill becomes law automatically if the Governor or President delays too long. It held that the Constitution does not support such a concept, and even the Court’s wide powers under Article 142 cannot be used to invent it. Any such doctrine would rewrite the Constitution, which is impermissible.
8. What about the President’s powers under Article 201?
The Court held that decisions under Article 201—i.e., assent or withholding by the President—are also not subject to judicial review on merits. The President’s satisfaction is sufficient. The President is not bound to seek the Supreme Court’s advice every time a Bill is reserved, unless the President himself needs clarification. Thus, the advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 is not a mandatory step in the reservation process.
9. Did the Supreme Court overrule earlier judgments?
The Bench acknowledged that different earlier judgments had conflicting views, particularly on justiciability and gubernatorial discretion. It clarified that larger bench decisions—which stated that assent decisions are non-reviewable—must prevail over smaller bench views like those expressed in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu. Thus, the Court harmonized precedents without treating the reference as an “appeal” against its own earlier judgment.
10. What is the impact of this decision?
This opinion strengthens democratic functioning by ensuring that Governors cannot indefinitely stall Bills passed by elected legislatures. It clarifies their powers, prevents misuse of discretion, and reaffirms the principle that legislation is subject to judicial review only after enactment. The decision also reinforces cooperative federalism by providing a clear constitutional roadmap for both State and Union functionaries.
0 Comments