Supreme Court to clarify limits on Governor and President assent to state bills

This is a Supreme Court of India opinion (Special Reference No. 1 of 2025) issued in response to a Presidential Reference regarding the constitutional powers of the Governor and President to assent to, withhold assent from, or reserve state bills under Articles 200 and 201. It matters to citizens as it clarifies the legal limits, timelines, and justiciability of executive actions on state legislation.

Who it concerns: The President of India, State Governors, State Legislatures, the Union of India, and State Governments (including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and others who filed submissions).

What the document says

• The President referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) on May 13, 2025, concerning the interpretation of powers under Articles 200 and 201.
• The reference addresses whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising options under Article 200.
• The reference questions whether the exercise of discretion by the Governor and President is justiciable and whether Article 361 acts as an absolute bar to judicial review.
• The reference asks if courts can impose timelines on the Governor and President for exercising their powers, given the Constitution does not stipulate specific time frames.
• The reference inquires about the validity of 'deemed assent' and whether it is alien to the constitutional scheme.
• The reference questions the scope of the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 to substitute orders of the President or Governor.
• The reference was placed before a Constitution Bench, with hearings commencing on August 19, 2025.

Also in the document

• The President cited conflicting Supreme Court judgments regarding the justiciability of Presidential assent under Article 201 as a reason for the reference.
• Parties opposing the reference argued it was not maintainable because the issues had already been conclusively decided in the case 'State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu' (2025 INSC 481).
• Opposing parties argued the reference was an attempt to sidestep the binding decision in the Tamil Nadu case by using the advisory jurisdiction.
• The document notes that the Constitution does not currently stipulate time frames for the Governor or President to exercise their options under Articles 200 and 201.