Why did the Supreme Court step in to clarify Governor and President powers?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has explained why it chose to answer the Presidential reference concerning the powers of the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The five-judge Constitution Bench stated that it had an institutional responsibility to offer clarity on a matter referred by the highest constitutional authority, particularly when the questions raised had a significant impact on the functioning of state legislatures and the Union.

Why did the Supreme Court choose to answer the Presidential reference?

In a landmark clarification on Thursday, the Supreme Court explained why it decided to respond to the Presidential reference on the powers of the President and Governors in giving assent to Bills. The Court said it had an institutional responsibility to offer its opinion when the highest constitutional authority seeks clarity on a matter of significant public importance.

The Presidential reference sought answers on whether judicially prescribed timelines for granting assent are constitutional, following the Court’s April 2025 ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.

What triggered the Presidential reference under Article 143?

On 13 May 2025, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143, which allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on legal questions of national importance. The reference included 14 questions related to the powers of Governors under Article 200 and of the President under Article 201, especially regarding timelines for assent.

This move came after the Supreme Court, in April 2025, found Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s prolonged non-action on Bills to be “illegal” and set timelines for both the Governor and the President, effectively curbing indefinite delays.

What was the core issue in the Tamil Nadu Governor case?

In 2023, the Tamil Nadu government challenged the Governor’s prolonged withholding of 10 Bills without communication. After the Bills were repassed, they were forwarded to the President.

In April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that:

• The Governor has three options under Article 200: grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the President.
• The Governor cannot exercise an absolute veto, especially once a Bill is reenacted by the Assembly.
• The Court imposed three sets of timelines for assent or return of Bills.
• Delays were made subject to judicial review to prevent constitutional paralysis.
• The Court also used Article 142 to declare “deemed assent” on the ten pending Bills, which raised concerns about separation of powers.

What did the Supreme Court clarify in its advisory opinion?

On Thursday, the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai held that:

• No binding timelines can be imposed on the President or Governors for granting assent.
• Their decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable, except in cases of prolonged, unexplained, indefinite inaction.
• Immunity under Article 361 does not prevent courts from directing a Governor to act within a “reasonable time”.
• The President is not required to consult the Court for each Bill sent for assent.
• The concept of ‘deemed assent’ does not exist in the Constitution, limiting the scope of Article 142.
• This means the April 2025 ruling’s timelines cannot automatically bind constitutional heads.

Can courts intervene if a Governor does nothing?

The Court held that while actions of a Governor are not ordinarily open to judicial review, failure to act indefinitely could invite “limited judicial scrutiny”.

Courts may:

• Direct the Governor to decide on a Bill
• Require a response within a “reasonable period”
• Examine extreme delays that disrupt the constitutional scheme
• But courts cannot prescribe fixed timelines or evaluate the merits of assent decisions.

Why is the question of ‘deemed assent’ significant?

In its April verdict, the Supreme Court used Article 142 to declare “deemed assent” for ten Bills that had been pending for months. This decision annulled one Presidential assent already granted.

In Thursday’s advisory opinion, the Court clarified:

• The Constitution does not recognise ‘deemed assent’.
• Article 142 cannot be used to create constitutional provisions that do not exist.
• This limits the judiciary’s power to intervene in legislative processes.

What happens next?

The advisory opinion will guide the handling of state Bills that face delays at Raj Bhavan or Rashtrapati Bhavan. While the President and Governors retain wide discretion, the Court has signalled that inaction cannot be indefinite.

The ruling attempts to strike a balance between safeguarding constitutional discretion and preventing executive heads from obstructing legislative processes.