In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be used to usurp the constitutional powers vested in the President and Governors. The Court was answering a Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu, addressing 14 questions related to the powers of Governors and the President concerning assent to bills passed by State legislatures.
The five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, delivered a unanimous opinion on November 20, 2025. The court emphasized that the constitutional scheme does not permit the introduction of a concept such as "deemed assent" under Article 142. It clarified that the exercise of constitutional powers by the President or the Governor cannot be substituted through Article 142.
The Supreme Court addressed the options available to a Governor when a bill is presented for assent under Article 200 of the Constitution. The court stated that the Governor has three options: grant assent, withhold assent and return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration, or reserve the bill for the President's consideration. The court explicitly ruled out the option of "withholding assent simpliciter," meaning a Governor cannot indefinitely keep a bill pending without any action. If assent is withheld, the Governor must return the bill to the House with comments.
The Court also addressed whether Governors are bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising their options under Article 200. The court clarified that while Article 163 generally requires the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, Article 200 is an exception where the Governor exercises independent discretion. This discretion is evident in the second proviso to Article 200, which allows the Governor to return the Bill to the Legislature or reserve it for the President's consideration.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that it cannot impose rigid timelines on constitutional authorities. However, the court also made it clear that Governors cannot resort to "prolonged and evasive inaction" by endlessly sitting on State Bills. Such inaction would amount to a deliberate attempt to thwart the people's will expressed through laws passed by State legislatures. In cases of prolonged, unexplained delay, the court can issue a limited mandamus to the Governor to discharge their function under Article 200 within a reasonable time.
The Court also clarified that the President is not required to seek the advice of the Supreme Court under Article 143 every time a bill is reserved by the Governor for consideration. The President may refer to the top court if the need arises.
The Supreme Court's opinion also touched upon the justiciability of the actions of the Governor and the President. The court clarified that it is impermissible for courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a bill before it becomes law. However, unexplained delay by the Governor will certainly invite judicial scrutiny.
In summary, the Supreme Court's advisory opinion provides significant clarity on the powers of the President and Governors concerning legislative assent. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and cautioned against the use of Article 142 to override these provisions. While the court acknowledged the discretionary powers of the President and Governors, it also stressed the need for them to act within a reasonable time frame and avoid frustrating the legislative process.
