The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark advisory opinion delivered on November 20, 2025, under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, addressed a Presidential Reference from President Droupadi Murmu comprising 14 questions on the powers of governors and the president in granting assent to state legislation. The nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, ruled that courts cannot impose fixed timelines on these constitutional authorities for acting under Articles 200 and 201, rejecting the concept of "deemed assent" as a judicial overreach that violates the separation of powers. This opinion, stemming from a prior April 2025 ruling on delays by Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, emphasizes the elasticity in the constitutional framework while cautioning against indefinite withholding of bills.

Article 200 mandates that when a bill passed by a state legislature is presented to the governor, they must act "as soon as possible." The Court clarified that the Governor has precisely three options: (1) grant assent, allowing the bill to become law; (2) reserve the bill for the President's consideration under Article 201, particularly if it involves repugnancy with central laws or national interest; or (3) withhold assent by returning the bill to the legislature with a message for reconsideration (applicable only to non-money bills). Notably, the Bench ruled out a fourth option of "withhold assent simpliciter"—simply refusing without returning—as impermissible, ensuring the legislative process remains active rather than stalled.

The judgment underscores the governor's discretionary role in this process, unbound by the aid and advice of the state Council of Ministers, as binding them would render options like returning or reserving the bill impossible. Chief Justice Gavai observed that this discretion does not confer unfettered power but must align with constitutional intent, preventing arbitrary delays. While no rigid timelines can be judicially mandated—overruling the earlier one-to-three-month directive—the Court affirmed limited judicial review in cases of "extreme inaction," where courts can intervene to prod action without substituting executive functions.

Also Read: Justice Surya Kant Sworn in as 53rd CJI, Sets Pendency and Mediation as Top Priorities

This ruling has profound implications for center-state relations, particularly in politically charged scenarios where governors, often seen as union agents, have delayed bills from opposition-ruled states. By preserving flexibility in Articles 200 and 201, the Supreme Court balances federalism with executive autonomy, urging governors and the president to exercise their powers "expeditiously" without judicial micromanagement. The opinion, delivered just before Justice Gavai's retirement, reinforces that people's will, as expressed through legislatures, culminates only upon valid assent, safeguarding democratic processes from undue obstruction.

Also Read: #BreakingNews: Indian Man Visiting Canada Criminally Harassed Teenage Girls, Receives Deportation Order