In a significant constitutional development, the Supreme Court of India will deliberate on July 22, 2025, on a Presidential reference that raises pivotal legal and constitutional questions regarding the powers of the Governor and the President of India in assenting to or withholding state legislation. The reference—‘In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India’—has been placed before a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar.
This reference has emerged from the constitutional uncertainty triggered by the April 8, 2024 judgment, which controversially laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to act upon Bills passed by State Legislatures—despite the Constitution itself being silent on such time-bound mandates.
Backdrop: The Tamil Nadu Bills Controversy and Apex Court’s Intervention
The flashpoint for this constitutional moment was the Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s refusal to act on 10 re-enacted Bills. The Supreme Court bench led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had ruled the Governor’s act of reserving the Bills for the President as illegal, holding that the President must take a decision within three months.
Importantly, the Court also invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to declare those Bills passed and in force, despite no assent being granted. This sparked debate across legal and political circles, drawing criticism of judicial overreach and breach of the separation of powers.
“Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force?”
Background: The April 2025 Judgment
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court, addressing the actions of the Tamil Nadu Governor regarding multiple state bills, pronounced that the “Governor’s indefinite delay in withholding state legislative bills was illegal and erroneous.” The court established a set of timelines for granting assent:
- Bills must be returned or acted upon within one to three months, depending on the circumstances, with any breach open to judicial review.
- The President is now required to decide on bills reserved by the Governor within three months.
The Court declared these powers using Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to “pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it.” Notably, the Court even deemed assent for ten pending bills, leading to heated debates across the legal and executive sectors
Presidential Reference Under Article 143(1): An Exceptional Constitutional Device
The reference was formally made on May 13, 2025, by President Droupadi Murmu, using her power under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which enables the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact of public importance.
In total, 14 complex legal questions have been referred to the Supreme Court, all touching upon the interplay between judicial review, legislative procedure, constitutional interpretation, and federal structure.
Key Constitutional Questions Raised in the Reference
The reference seeks answers to constitutional dilemmas that will likely set binding precedent for the Indian federation. Some of the major questions include:
- Justiciability of Discretionary Powers:
Whether the President’s discretion under Article 201 and the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 are subject to judicial scrutiny before a Bill becomes law. - Judicial Review Before Law Comes Into Force:
Whether courts can undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill that has not yet become a law. - Scope of Article 142:
Whether the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 are confined to procedural directions, or can they be used to override or substitute the roles and powers of the President or Governor in substantive matters.
“Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?”
- Constitutional Status of Bills Without Assent:
Whether a Bill passed by a State Legislature can be deemed law without Governor’s assent under Article 200. - Interpretation Bench Requirement:
Whether Article 145(3) requires the matter to be mandatorily referred to a Constitution Bench of at least five judges, given the substantial questions of law involved. - Jurisdiction to Resolve Inter-Governmental Disputes:
Whether only a suit under Article 131 can be used to resolve disputes between Union and States or whether Articles 32 or 142 provide concurrent jurisdiction.
“Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?”
Why This Matters: Separation of Powers, Federalism, and Judicial Reach
This reference highlights a clash between constitutional convention and judicial innovation. At stake is the principle of federalism, the autonomy of State legislatures, and the demarcation of powers between the Judiciary and the Executive.
While the Supreme Court has often stepped in under Article 142 to deliver complete justice, this time, it appears to have potentially ventured into the territory of lawmaking and legislative process—raising alarms within constitutional circles. Critics including Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Governor of Kerala Rajendra Arlekar have called the April judgment an encroachment on executive discretion.
At the heart of the debate is judicial restraint vs. judicial activism—especially in scenarios where the Constitution does not prescribe time limits for executive action, but the judiciary mandates them through interpretation.
Constitutional Provisions Explained
Article 200 and 201: Role of Governor and President in State Bills
Article 200 allows a Governor to:
- Assent to the Bill,
- Withhold assent,
- Return the Bill (other than a Money Bill) for reconsideration by the legislature,
- Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.
Article 201 empowers the President, when a bill is reserved, to:
- Grant assent,
- Withhold assent,
- Return the Bill for reconsideration by the State Legislature (except for Money Bills); if passed again, the President can only grant or withhold assent.
The Constitution does not stipulate any specific timeframe for these decisions, which is the core of the present legal dispute.
Article 142: Complete Justice
Article 142 gives the Supreme Court the power to “pass any order necessary for doing complete justice.” The wide and often debated scope of this Article allows the Court, in exceptional cases, to go beyond statutory or procedural constraints for the sake of justice. However, its unrestrained use can raise questions about separation of powers between the judiciary and executive branches.
Article 143: Advisory Jurisdiction
Under Article 143(1), the President can refer legal questions of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion. Such opinions, while authoritative, are not binding on the President or the government but hold significant persuasive value. Notably, Article 145(3) requires a minimum five-judge bench for points involving substantial interpretation of the Constitution.
Article 131 & Article 32: Disputes & Fundamental Rights
- Article 131 grants exclusive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to decide disputes between states or between a state and the union government.
- Article 32 guarantees citizens the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, famously called the “heart and soul” of the Constitution
Constitution Bench to Shape the Future of Legislative Federalism
The Constitution Bench’s opinion, though advisory under Article 143, will have immense persuasive value and will likely guide future constitutional practice regarding the legislative process, assent timelines, and the role of the judiciary.
In a time where State Governments are increasingly invoking Article 32 and Article 131, this reference offers an opportunity to clarify boundaries between constitutional functionaries and reinforce the sanctity of the Constitution’s structure.
With the stakes being nothing short of the balance of power in Indian federalism, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in this historic constitutional reference.
