Presidential Reference on Powers of the Governor and President
Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India
A five-judge Constitution Bench will examine a Presidential reference that questions the Court's authority to impose deadlines for the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
Pending
Parties
Case Details
Case Number: SPL.REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A
Next Hearing: July 22, 2025
Last Updated: July 21, 2025
Key Issues
What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available to him when a bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review on the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
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?
Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
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?
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?
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 to 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?
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?
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?
Given 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?
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 extend to issuing directions /passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?
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?
Case Description
On 13 May 2025, President Droupadi Murmu invoked the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 of the Constitution. The provision empowers the President to seek the Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact which are of public importance.
The President referred a total of 14 questions concerning the powers of a Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively. The reference came after the Court’s judgement in State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025). In that case, the Court had set timelines for the Governor and President when bills reach their office for assent.
The Tamil Nadu Governor Judgement
In 2023,, the Tamil Nadu government challenged Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged pendency in giving assent to 10 bills passed by the state government. Due to non-communication on the bills, the state assembly had repassed them. These were subsequently reserved for the President’s consideration.
On 8 April 2025, the Supreme Court held that the Governor’s indefinite delay in withholding state legislative bills was “illegal” and “erroneous.” The Bench clarified that the powers of the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution were limited to three options. He could either grant assent, withhold assent or reserve it for the President’s consideration. Moreover, the Governor has no option but to grant assent to bills that were reenacted by the state assembly after they were withheld. He could not exercise an “absolute veto” on the bills.
Three sets of timeline were set for the Governor to grant assent to bills. If the bills were withheld or reserved for the President with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers it had to be sent back to the legislature within a month. In an instance where this was done contrary to the advice, it had to be sent back within three months. If the legislature re-passed the bill, it had to be passed within a month. Any breach of the timelines was made amenable to judicial review. This would give an opportunity for the functionaries to explain the delay. The Court laid down a three-month deadline for Presidential approval of bills which were reserved for her consideration
Significantly, the Bench had used the Court’s inherent powers under Article 142 to deem assent on ten pending state bills. By ‘deeming assent’, the judgement declared any action by the President on the reserved bills as void. This led to the default cancellation of the President’s decision to assent to one of the bills. The judgement got mixed reactions with some hailing the verdict, whereas some criticising the Court for breaching the separation of powers.
Presidential reference
In the aftermath of the judgement, President Murmu wrote to the Chief Justice with the questions seeking clarity on whether judicial interventions are constitutional, given that Articles 200 and 201 do not prescribe a timeline and manner of exercise of the powers of the Governor and the President. The reference questions whether the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 and by the President under Article 201 is justiciable.
Constitution of the Bench
A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar is scheduled to hear the reference on 22 July 2025.
This is the first Constitution Bench allocated by CJI Gavai and will be the second Constitution Bench case to be heard by the Court in 2025.