New Delhi, November 19, 2025 – Constitutional clarity emerged as the Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict settling longstanding debates about gubernatorial powers. The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, responded to 14 critical questions posed by President Droupadi Murmu. This historic judgment balances state autonomy with constitutional propriety while addressing concerns about delayed bill approvals.
The apex court’s opinion comes just days before Chief Justice Gavai’s retirement on November 23, 2025. Therefore, this ruling carries immense significance for India’s federal structure. Moreover, it overturns the controversial timelines set by an earlier two-judge bench in April 2025.
Understanding the Presidential Reference
President Droupadi Murmu invoked the rarely used Article 143(1) in May 2025. Consequently, she sought the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on whether the judiciary could prescribe time limits for constitutional authorities. The reference included 14 specific questions about gubernatorial powers under Article 200 and presidential powers under Article 201.
This unprecedented move followed the Tamil Nadu government’s petition against Governor RN Ravi. Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed 12 bills. However, the Governor withheld assent for an extended period. Subsequently, the state government approached the Supreme Court, challenging this prolonged delay.
Three Options, Not Four
The Supreme Court clarified that gubernatorial powers operate within a defined framework. Article 200 provides the Governor with exactly three constitutional options when a bill arrives for assent. Firstly, the Governor can grant assent, thereby enacting the bill into law. Secondly, they can withhold assent and return it with comments for reconsideration. Thirdly, they may reserve the bill for the President’s consideration.
Importantly, the Court ruled that no fourth option of “simpliciter withholding” exists. “The Governor cannot simply refuse to sign a bill and keep it pending,” the bench emphasized. If they withhold assent, they must return the bill to the House. This interpretation prevents constitutional deadlock while maintaining checks and balances.
“The Governor has discretion in choosing any of these three options, but this does not justify inaction.” – Supreme Court
Discretion Without Cabinet Binding
Article 163 of the Constitution generally requires the Governor to act on ministerial advice. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that gubernatorial discretion applies when granting assent to bills. The Governor is not bound by the Cabinet’s advice in this specific function.
The bench reasoned logically about this independence. If Governors were bound by the Cabinet, they could never return a bill for reconsideration. No government would advise against its own legislation. Therefore, this discretion serves as a constitutional safeguard.
However, the Court cautioned that discretion does not mean unfettered power. The Governor must exercise this authority responsibly. Furthermore, it cannot be used to stall legislation indefinitely. Constitutional morality demands timely action even when discretion exists.
Judicial Review: Limited but Essential
The judgment draws a crucial distinction between reviewing decisions and examining inaction. Substantive decisions about why a Governor took a certain step remain non-justiciable. Courts cannot review the wisdom of these decisions. However, prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction falls within judicial scrutiny.
Article 361 grants personal immunity to Governors, stating they are not answerable to any court. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held this protection applies to the individual, not the office. Constitutional inaction cannot hide behind personal immunity. Thus, courts can direct Governors to act when delays become unreasonable.
This limited judicial review maintains the separation of powers. Additionally, it prevents constitutional paralysis. The Court can issue a mandamus directing the Governor to decide within a reasonable period. Yet, it cannot dictate what that decision should be.
No Fixed Timelines for Constitutional Authorities
Perhaps the most significant aspect of this verdict concerns timelines. The Supreme Court overruled its April 2025 judgment that prescribed specific deadlines. That earlier ruling mandated Governors to act within one to three months. Similarly, it set a three-month timeline for the President.
The Constitution Bench firmly rejected these rigid deadlines. Article 200 uses the elastic phrase “as soon as possible” rather than fixed timeframes. Accordingly, the judiciary cannot substitute this constitutional language with specific deadlines. “The imposition of a timeline would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution carefully preserves,” the Court observed.
This applies equally to the President under Article 201. Presidential decisions on reserved bills cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines. The President’s subjective satisfaction remains paramount. However, this does not permit indefinite delay either.
Deemed Assent Decisively Rejected
The April 2025 verdict introduced the concept of “deemed assent.” Under this theory, bills would be considered automatically approved if delayed beyond prescribed timelines. The Constitution Bench categorically rejected this legal fiction.
Article 142 grants the Supreme Court broad powers to do “complete justice.” Nevertheless, the Court held that this power cannot create fictional assent. “Deemed consent of the Governor, or President, at the expiry of a judicially set timeline, is virtually a takeover and substitution of executive functions by the judiciary,” the bench ruled.
This usurpation violates the separation of powers, which forms part of the basic structure. The Constitution deliberately assigns specific roles to different organs. Accordingly, the judiciary cannot perform executive functions through judicial pronouncement. The Governor’s legislative role cannot be supplanted by another constitutional authority.
“We have no hesitation in concluding that deemed assent is antithetical not only to the spirit of the Constitution but also to the doctrine of separation of powers.” – Supreme Court
Presidential Powers Under Article 201
When a Governor reserves a bill for presidential consideration, Article 201 governs the process. The President can either grant assent or withhold it. For non-money bills, the President may return the bill to the state legislature with recommendations.
The Supreme Court clarified that presidential decisions under Article 201 mirror gubernatorial powers. They are not justiciable on merits. Moreover, no judicial timelines can be imposed. The President is not required to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 for every reserved bill.
However, the Court suggested that if constitutional concerns arise, seeking an advisory opinion holds persuasive value. This recommendation balances presidential autonomy with constitutional safeguards. Furthermore, it provides a mechanism for resolving genuine constitutional doubts.
Bills Cannot Become Law Without Assent
The Constitution Bench definitively answered whether state legislation can take effect without gubernatorial assent. The answer is an emphatic no. A bill passed by the state legislature does not become law until the Governor or President grants assent.
This principle maintains constitutional hierarchy. Legislative passage marks one stage in the law-making process. Subsequently, executive assent completes that process. Without this final step, the bill remains merely a legislative proposal. Therefore, no legal fiction can substitute for actual constitutional assent.
This ruling reinforces that constitutional processes must be followed completely. Shortcuts or judicial innovations cannot replace these established procedures. Consequently, the legislature and executive must work cooperatively within the constitutional framework.
Cooperative Federalism and Dialogue
While establishing these principles, the Supreme Court emphasized cooperative federalism. India’s constitutional system requires dialogue between different organs and levels of government. Governors must adopt a consultative approach rather than an obstructionist stance.
The Court noted that Governors serve as constitutional bridges, not political agents. “He must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, a catalyst and not an inhibitor,” the judgment observed. This vision requires Governors to facilitate legislative processes while exercising legitimate oversight.
Similarly, state governments must respect the Governor’s constitutional role. They cannot treat assent as merely a formality. Instead, both sides should engage in meaningful dialogue. This approach strengthens democratic governance while respecting constitutional boundaries.
Questions the Court Declined
Not all 14 questions received substantive answers. The Supreme Court declined to answer questions deemed irrelevant to the core issues. Question 12 asked whether cases involving substantial constitutional interpretation must be referred to five-judge benches. The Court found this procedural query irrelevant to legislative assent issues.
Similarly, Question 13 about Article 142’s scope and Question 14 about disputes between the Union and states under Article 131 were deemed unnecessary. The Court focused on questions directly relevant to gubernatorial and presidential powers regarding bill assent. This selective approach maintained clarity and avoided unnecessary constitutional pronouncements.
Historical Context and Precedent
This judgment builds upon several important precedents. The 1974 Shamsher Singh case established that Governors generally act on ministerial advice. The 2016 Nabam Rebia case reinforced these principles. However, these earlier judgments left certain aspects of Article 200 open to interpretation.
The Tamil Nadu case brought these ambiguities to a head. Governor Ravi’s prolonged withholding of 10 bills created a constitutional impasse. The April 2025 ruling attempted to resolve this through strict timelines and deemed assent. Nevertheless, this approach raised serious separation of powers concerns.
The presidential reference provided an opportunity for comprehensive clarification. The five-judge Constitution Bench examined the issue from multiple angles. Additionally, it heard extensive arguments from the Centre, states, political parties, and legal experts. This thorough process resulted in a balanced judgment.
Implications for State Governance
This verdict significantly impacts how state governments and Governors interact. States can no longer expect automatic assent within fixed timeframes. However, Governors cannot use discretion to indefinitely stall legislation. Both sides must act reasonably and in good faith.
Opposition-ruled states had complained about systematic delays by Governors. These complaints triggered the Tamil Nadu litigation. While the Court acknowledged that indefinite delays are impermissible, it declined to impose rigid solutions. Instead, it trusts constitutional authorities to act responsibly.
If unreasonable delays occur, state governments can approach courts. The judiciary can issue limited directions requiring timely action. However, courts cannot substitute their judgment for constitutional authorities. This balance maintains both accountability and autonomy.
The Path Forward
The Supreme Court’s opinion provides much-needed clarity on gubernatorial powers. It establishes clear boundaries while preserving constitutional flexibility. Moving forward, this framework should guide interactions between Governors and state legislatures.
Governors must recognize their role as constitutional functionaries, not political actors. They should act promptly on bills while exercising legitimate oversight. When concerns arise, dialogue and consultation should be the preferred approach. Indefinite delays without explanation will attract judicial intervention.
State governments, meanwhile, must respect the Governor’s constitutional position. They cannot treat assent as automatic or ceremonial. When bills are returned with comments, legislatures should reconsider them seriously. This mutual respect strengthens India’s federal democracy.
Constitutional Authorities Must Self-Regulate
Ultimately, the judgment places responsibility on constitutional authorities themselves. The Court cannot micromanage every aspect of the legislative process. Rigid timelines and judicial oversight have inherent limitations. Therefore, Governors and Presidents must exercise their powers conscientiously.
“Constitutional dialogue between the Executive and the Judiciary” characterizes the Court’s approach. This dialogue works best when all parties respect constitutional boundaries. The judgment provides the framework; implementation depends on good faith and constitutional morality.
As Chief Justice Gavai noted, the opinion was delivered “in the name of the court” rather than any individual judge. This approach reflects the collective wisdom of the Constitution Bench. Moreover, it emphasizes institutional continuity beyond individual tenures.
Conclusion: Balance Restored
The Supreme Court’s response to the presidential reference restores constitutional balance. It protects gubernatorial discretion while preventing obstruction. Simultaneously, it maintains judicial review for egregious inaction while respecting separation of powers. The rejection of deemed assent and fixed timelines preserves constitutional architecture.
This judgment will shape center-state relations for years to come. Consequently, it marks a significant moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The 14 questions have been answered comprehensively, providing clarity where confusion once existed. India’s federal democracy emerges stronger with these well-defined guardrails guiding constitutional functionaries.
