In re Assent to Bills by the Governor and President
Supreme Court of India, 20 November 2025, 5 judges, 2025 INSC 1333
Answering a Presidential Reference, the Court opined that courts cannot fix timelines for the Governor or President under Articles 200 and 201, there is no deemed assent, and only a limited mandamus lies against prolonged inaction.
Facts
On 13 May 2025 the President, acting under Article 143(1), referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court on the powers of the Governor under Article 200 and of the President under Article 201, with ancillary questions on Articles 131, 142, 145(3) and 361. The reference recited that neither Article prescribes a time frame, that there were conflicting judgments on whether the President's assent is justiciable, and that deemed assent is alien to the constitutional scheme. A Constitution Bench heard the Union, the Attorney General, States, Union Territories and intervenors. Parties opposing the reference argued that it was not maintainable, being an appeal or review in disguise of the Division Bench decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu. The Court rejected these preliminary objections, holding that the reference sought clarification of the law, not alteration of the relief granted in that case.
Questions before the Court
- Is the reference maintainable, given the earlier decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu?
- What options does the Governor have under Article 200, and is he bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in choosing among them?
- Are the actions of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 justiciable, and does Article 361 bar judicial review?
- Can courts prescribe timelines for the Governor and the President, or deem assent to have been given under Article 142?
What the Court held
- The Governor has three options under Article 200: assent, reserve the Bill for the President, or withhold assent and return it with comments (not available for a Money Bill). The first proviso restricts these options and adds no fourth. When a returned Bill comes back, the Governor may still assent or reserve it for the President.
- In choosing among these options the Governor exercises discretion and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The Governor's function under Article 200 and the President's assent under Article 201 are not justiciable, and courts cannot review a Bill's contents before it becomes law. For prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction, courts may issue a limited mandamus to act within a reasonable time, without comment on merits. Article 361 immunity is personal and no bar to this.
- Courts cannot prescribe timelines for the Governor or the President, and the paragraphs of State of Tamil Nadu imposing timelines on the Governor were erroneous. The President need not seek this Court's opinion under Article 143 every time a Bill is reserved.
- Article 142 cannot be used to substitute the functions of the Governor or President, and the Constitution does not allow deemed assent. A State law cannot come into force without the Governor's assent under Article 200.
- Questions 12 (Article 145(3)) and 14 (Article 131) were returned unanswered as irrelevant to the reference; Question 13 on Article 142 was too broad and was answered only as part of Question 10.
Why it matters
The opinion settles the reading of Articles 200 and 201: the Governor's three options, his discretion in choosing among them, and the absence of any judicially set time limit or deemed assent. It declares erroneous the parts of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu that imposed timelines on the Governor, treats its observations on timelines for the President as obiter, and limits Article 142. It also recognises a limited mandamus as the remedy for prolonged gubernatorial inaction.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“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.”
“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.”
“We have no hesitation in concluding that the concept of deemed assent of pending Bills by the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, is virtually a takeover of the role, and function, of a separate constitutional authority. The reliance on Article 142, cannot lead to supplanting constitutional provisions itself.”
“We clarify that this does not extend to the Court directing that one particular course of action will be employed by the Governor. There is no formulaic manner, or timeline, that the Courts by judicial order can establish. Not every case would lead the Court to issue an automatic direction to ‘act’, rather this limited direction would have to be measured based on appropriate circumstances.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Overrules State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)“State of Tamil Nadu (supra) that the 7-judge bench in Samsher Singh (supra) held that the second proviso to Article 200, is the only instance that contemplates discretion of the Governor, cannot be relied upon as good law” (page 55)
- Follows Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016)“We are of in agreement with the view affirmed in Nabam Rebia that Article 200 of the Constitution confers discretionary powers on the Governor.” (page 53)
- Distinguishes Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020)“cannot be equated with the gubernatorial function and the Governor’s exercise of discretion in that regard under Article 200” (page 75)
Case and bench
- Parties
- In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India
- Case
- Special Reference No. 1 of 2025
- Decided
- 20 November 2025
- Bench
- B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Atul S. Chandurkar
- Opinions
- Unanimous. A single Opinion of the Court, signed by all five judges; the text does not name an author.