Supreme Court: While considering this Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution relating to interpretation of powers of the Governor under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution for opinion of the Supreme Court; the Constitution Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., opined that:
-
The Governor has 3 constitutional options before him, under Article 200, namely – to assent, reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President, or withhold assent and return the Bill to the Legislature with comments. The first proviso to Article 200 is bound to the substantive part of the provision, and restricts the existing options, rather than offering a fourth option. Pertinently, the third option — to withhold assent and return with comments — is only available to the Governor when it is not a Money Bill.
-
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.
-
The discharge of the Governor’s function under Article 200, is not justiciable. The Court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision so taken. However, in glaring circumstances of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite — the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his function under Article 200 within a reasonable time period, without making any observations on the merits of the exercise of his discretion.
-
Article 361 of the Constitution is an absolute bar on judicial review in relation to personally subjecting the Governor to judicial proceedings. However, it cannot be relied upon to negate the limited scope of judicial review that Supreme Court is empowered to exercise in situations of prolonged inaction by the Governor under Article 200. It is clarified that while the Governor continues to enjoy personal immunity, the constitutional office of the Governor is subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
-
In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the Governor, it would not be appropriate for Supreme Court to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200.
-
The President’s assent under Article 201 too, is not justiciable.
-
The Court clarified that the President, too, cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines in the discharge of functions under Article 201.
-
The President is not required to seek advice of the Court by way of reference under Article 143, every time a Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent. The subjective satisfaction of the President is sufficient. If there is a lack of clarity, or the President so requires advice of this Court on a Bill, it may be referred under Article 143, as it has been done on numerous previous occasions.
-
The decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 respectively, are not justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force. It is impermissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law. Pertinently, discharge of its role under Article 143, does not constitute ‘judicial adjudication’.
-
The exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of the President/Governor cannot be substituted in any manner under Article 142, and the Court clarified that the Constitution, specifically Article 142 even, does not allow for the concept of ‘deemed assent’ of Bills.
-
There is no question of a law made by the State Legislature coming into force without assent of the Governor under Article 200. The Governor’s legislative role under Article 200 cannot be supplanted by another constitutional authority.
-
The power under Article 142 is overly broad, and not possible to answer in a definitive manner.
President of India has on 13-5-2025 referred 14 questions relating to interpretation of powers of the Governor under Articles 200 and 201 along with certain ancillary questions for opinion of the Supreme Court.
Court’s Assessment:
The Court observed that substantive part of Article 200 employs three verbs that indicate the options of the Governor- assent, withhold, and reserve. Each of these actions are qualitatively different from one another. However, the first proviso which repeats the verb ‘withhold’ indicates that the word “withholds” in the substantive part is not without qualification.
The first proviso in the Court’s opinion qualifies the verb “withholds” in the substantive part and obliges the Governor to “return” the Bill in accordance with the first proviso, except, in case of a Money Bill. In that sense, the first proviso is not an exception that creates a fourth option, it is rather a qualification to the substantive part of Article 200, limiting the full play of the word “withholds” employed therein.
the States are entitled to determine the legislative policy within the legislative spheres constitutionally allotted to them subject to the constitutional provisions and framework. No one description – federal, quasi federal, federalism with unitary bias, pragmatic federalism, cooperative federalism or asymmetrical federalism, captures the nature of Indian federalism in its entirety, but each contributes to a unique perspective of understanding the nature of Indian federalism. It would be against the principle of federalism and a derogation of the powers of the State legislatures, to permit the Governor to withhold a Bill without following the dialogic process in the first proviso to Article 200.
The Governor exercises his functions in accordance with the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers. Secondly, the Constitution itself provides that the Governor may discharge certain functions upon his discretion, and without being bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers. Thirdly, the circumstances or occasions where the Governor is to discharge his functions without being bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, are either expressly provided, or through necessary implication where the constitutional context requires exercise of this discretion.
The inclusion of the phrase “in the opinion of the Governor” in the second proviso to Article 200 is but a definitive expression of the fact that Governor does enjoy discretion in discharging his functions under Article 200. There is no interpretative space for discretion while exercising some options of Article 200, and no discretion in others. A limited application of this phrase to only the second proviso is neither logical, nor in accord with the Constitutional scheme.
A reading of the text of Articles 200 and 201 clarifies that the only temporal aspect tied to the constitutional functionaries so referred, in these provisions are as follows: firstly, that if the Governor finds reason to withhold and therefore, return the Bill with his comments for the consideration of the State Legislature, he is required to do so “as soon as possible” as per the first proviso to Article 200; secondly, that once the President instructs the Governor to return a Bill to the State Legislature with the former’s comments, it is incumbent upon the Legislature, in fact, to “reconsider it accordingly within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such message”.
The Court clarified that paragraphs of the judgment in State of T.N. v. Governor of T.N., (2025) 8 SCC 1, pertaining to the imposition of timelines on the Governor under Article 200 are erroneous. The text of Articles 200 and 201, has been framed in such a manner, so as to provide a sense of elasticity, for constitutional authorities to perform their functions, keeping in mind the diverse contexts and situations, and by consequence the need for balancing that might arise in the process of lawmaking in a federal, and democratic country like India. The imposition of timelines would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution so carefully preserves.
[Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, In Re, SPECIAL REFERENCE NO. 1 of 2025, decided on 20-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Nodal Counsel Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Ayush Kashyap,Adv.
For Respondent(s)/Applicant(s): Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Kanu Agrawal,Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Madhav Singhal, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mili Joy Baxi, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey,Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal,Adv. Ms. Ameyvikrama Thanvi,Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav,Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv. Mr. Anandh Venkataramani,Adv. Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee,Adv. Ms. Oorasvi Goswami,Adv. Ms. Yamika Khanna,Adv. Ms. Anjali Agrawal,Adv. Ms. Rishti Vimadalal,Adv. Mr. Devraj Singh,Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General Ms. Samapika Biswal, AOR Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Soumya Sannidhanam, Adv. Ms. Mehak Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shailja Singh, Adv. Mr. Ruturaj Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Sukanya Das, Adv. Ms. Visakha Raghuram, Adv. Mr. Somkeerti V Singhdeo, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Ms. Ritika Khatri, Adv. Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv. Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv. Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Mr. Shivkumar, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Singh, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Ms. Ritika Khera, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv. Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Kartikey Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Chimni, Adv. Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Diwedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. P Wilson, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Apoorv Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Seem, Adv. Mr. Uday Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Sabir, Adv. Mr. Deepak Jian, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Krishna, Adv. Mr. Raktim Gogai, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Singh, Adv. Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Shubham Kothari, Adv. Mr. Shubham P. Chopra, Adv. Mr. Aiyushi Daga, Adv. Mr. Preetika Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. B Aravind, Adv. Mr. Aditya Ojha, Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pv Surenderanath, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Mr. Sidhant Kohli, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Sawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil, Adv. Gen./Sikkim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Ms. Yachna Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Samarth Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Arijeet Shukla Adv., Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Karl P Rustomkhan, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Dutta Shrimali, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee,ASG Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani,Sr.Adv. Mr. Arvind Datar,Sr.Adv. Mr. Anand Sharma,Adv. Mr. S Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Mr. Vineet George, Adv. Ms. Akhila, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Salar Aatif, Adv. Mr. Pradyuman Kaistha, Adv. Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate General Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ira S. Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Varad Kohle, Adv. Mr. Saumitra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Udit Sidhra, Adv. Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Ms. Karishma Malani, A.A.G. Ms. Kirti, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Ms. Makrand Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditi Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Sindhoora Vnl, Adv. Mr. Vikas C Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ashwin K, Adv. Mr. Vishesh Goyal, Adv. Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Asthana, Adv. Ms. Sonali Gaur, Adv. Mr. Rangasaran Mohan, Adv. Mr. Amarpal Singh Dua, Adv. Mr. Milind Rai, Adv. Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv. Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv. Ms. Saubhagya Sundriyal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Advocate General/Meghalaya Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Shankar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Luv Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aarushi Malik, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Sehrawat, Adv. Ms. Apoorva, Adv. Mr. K N Balgopal, Adv. General/Nagaland, Sr. Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Vitso Rio, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, A.A.G. Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Ms. Sanya Kaushal, Adv. Ms. Riya Sagar, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Kartik Dey, Adv. Mr. Lenin Singh Hijam, Adv. Gen, Sr, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR Mr. Rishesh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Yaduven, Adv. Mr. Anandh Venkataramani, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Deboshree Mukherjee, Adv. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Raman Yadav, Adv. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Oorjasvi Goswami, Adv. Yamika Khanna, Adv. Anjali Agrawal, Adv. Rishit Vimadalal, Adv. Devvrat Singh, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Praphulla Kumar Bharat, Advocate General Mr. Apoorv Kurup, A.A.G. Mr. B.s Rajesh Agrajit, D.A.G. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Adv. Mr. Yimyanger Longkumar, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Virendra Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv. Mr. Anup Kumar Rattan, Advocate General Mr. Arman Roop Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shimpy Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Aman Khan Afghani, Adv. Ms. Priya Pachouri, Adv. Mr. Nishkarsh Pharswal, Adv. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR Ms. Avani Bansal, Adv. Ms. Parika Singh, Adv. Mr. Suva Batabyal, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Sayyed Gulerana Shabbir Ali, Adv. Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Misra, Adv. Mr. Naman Shrestra, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Himanshu Tyagi,Adv. Mrs. Anjale Kumari,Adv. Ms. Pooja Shipkar,Adv. Mr. Madhav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thaldur,Adv. Mr. Nishant Verma,Adv. Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sneh Vardhan, Adv. Mr. Chhail Bihari Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Niraj, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv. Mrs. Kanika, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rahul G Tanwani, Adv. Mr. Anantha Narayana M.g., AOR Mr. V.C. Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Sindoora Vnl, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Sr.Adv. Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha,Adv. Mr. Anantha Nrayana M.G.,Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Sr.Adv. Dr. suvidutt M.S.,Adv. Ms. Deepika Singh,Adv. Ms. Disha Puri,Adv. Mr. P. Wilson,Sr.Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr.Adv Mr. Richardson Wilson,Adv. Mr. Apoorv Malhotra,Adv. Mr. Lokesh Krishna,Adv. Mr. Ankit Sharma,Adv. Mr. Aditya Ojha,Adv. Mr. Aravind,Adv. Mr. Saran Raghunandhan,Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham,Adv. Mr. Varun K. Chopra,Adv. For M/s. VKC Law Offices Mr. Sudiep Shrivastavba,Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva,Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi,Adv. Mr. Abhay Nair,Adv. Mr. P. Rohit Ram,Adv. Mr. Sanyam Jain,Adv. Mr. Pratik R. Bombarde,Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh,Adv. Ms. Kirti Anand,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar,Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal,Sr.Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhavi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Shashikiran Shetty,A.G. Mr. Prateek K. Chadha,AAG Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan,AAG Mr. Nishant Patil,AAG Mr. Aman Panwar,AAG Mr. Avishkar Singhvi,AAG Ms. Tarannum Cheema,AAG Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR Mrs. Swati Bhushan Sharma,Adv. Mr. S.K. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari,Adv. Ms. Gauri Subramanium,Adv. Mr. Omar Hoda,Adv. Mr. Pavan Bhushan,Adv. Mr. Jaivardhan Singh,Adv. Ms. Rupali Samuel,Adv. Ms. Sumedha Ray Sarkar,Adv. Ms. Adoorya Harish,Adv. Mr. Sreekar Yechuri,Adv. Mr. Aniket Chauhaan,Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi,Adv. Mr. Arjun Sharma,Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
