The story so far:
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a Presidential reference made in May 2025 that has sought the opinion of the Court on 14 questions, primarily surrounding the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
What is the current reference?
The current reference is a result of a Supreme Court judgment in April 2025 (The State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr) that had specified timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures. It had held that if the Governor was to withhold assent or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President, contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, he/she should do so within a period of three months. It further held that if a Bill for which assent has been withheld is again passed by the State legislature, the Governor shall assent to such Bill. It had prescribed a timeline of three months for the President to decide on State Bills reserved for his/her consideration. The court had also held that decisions by Governors and the President on such Bills, including delays beyond the prescribed timelines, will be subject to judicial review.
The government has raised questions regarding the authority of the Court to prescribe timelines when they are not specified in the Constitution.
What does the Constitution say?
Article 200 of the Constitution lays down that when a Bill, passed by a State Legislature, is presented to the Governor for his/her assent, he/she has four alternatives: (a) may give assent to the Bill (b) may withhold assent to the Bill, that is, reject the Bill in which case the Bill fails to become law; (c) may return the Bill for reconsideration of the State Legislature; or (d) may reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
As held by the Supreme Court in various cases including the Shamsher Singh case (1974), the Governor does not exercise his/her discretionary powers while withholding assent for a Bill. He/she is required to act as per the advice of the Council of Ministers. The return of any Bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration is also to be done based on ministerial advice. As explained in the Constituent Assembly by T.T. Krishnamachari, this may be done if the Government feels that the Bill needs modifications. The Governor shall assent to such a Bill if it is passed again by the State Legislature.
As far as reserving any Bill for consideration of the President, the Governor must reserve certain Bills like those which reduce the powers of the High Court. He/she may reserve certain Bills based on the advice of the Council of Ministers like those that relate to a subject enumerated in the Concurrent List, to ensure operation of its provisions despite repugnancy to a Union Law. It is only under rare circumstances that the Governor may exercise his/her discretion and reserve a Bill where he/she feels that the provisions of the Bill contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution and therefore, reserve it for the consideration of the President.
The Constitution does not lay down any time limit within which the Governor is required to make a decision with respect to any Bill presented for his/her assent. The main part of Article 200 states that once a Bill is presented to the Governor, he/she ‘shall’ declare that he/she assents to the Bill or withholds assent or reserves the Bill for consideration of the President. The proviso to the article adds that the Governor may ‘as soon as possible’ return the Bill for reconsideration of the State legislature.
What are the recommendations?
The Sarkaria Commission (1987) had stated that only the reservation of Bills for consideration of the President, that too under rare cases of patent unconstitutionality, can be implied as a discretionary power of the Governor. Apart from such exceptional cases, the Governor must discharge his functions under Article 200 as per the advice of Ministers. It further recommended that the President (Central Government) should dispose of such Bills within a maximum period of six months. The Punchhi Commission (2010) had recommended that the Governor should take a decision with respect to a Bill presented for his/her assent within a period of six months.
What are the arguments?
Article 163(1) of the Constitution requires the Governor to act as per the advice of the Council of Ministers except in so far as he/she is required by or under the Constitution to act as per his/her discretion. Article 163(2) further provides that if any question arises on whether the matter is a matter which the Governor is required to act as per his/her discretion, the decision of the Governor in such cases shall be final and shall not be called into question.
The Centre has argued that the Governor enjoys discretion as per the above Article which cannot be inquired into by the courts and consequently no timelines can be fixed. It also raised objections to the three-month timeframe that has been stipulated for the President to decide on Bills which have been reserved. Article 201 that deals with this matter does not stipulate any timeline. The Centre has maintained that any issues between the elected government in a State, the Governor and the President need to be resolved politically within the framework of the Constitution and that the courts cannot be an adjudicator for every such impasse.
However, Opposition-ruled States have argued that the Governors in such States have been selectively delaying assent or reserving Bills, against the advice of the Council of Ministers, for the consideration of the President. They have argued that such deliberate delays cannot be termed as discretion and that it disrespects the popular mandate of the people of the State.
What should be the way forward?
All the issues stated above are in the nature of symptoms. The underlying disease that has plagued our federal set up has been the politicisation of the gubernatorial post. Many political leaders starting from C.N. Annadurai to Nitish Kumar have called for the abolition of the Governor’s post in the past. However, as per our Constitutional scheme, there is a need for a nominal head of the State executive just like the President for the Union executive.
Nevertheless, federalism is also a basic feature of our Constitution and the Governor’s office should not undermine the powers of popularly elected governments at the States.
The Court usually exercises restraint while stipulating timelines for action by constitutional authorities where none is provided in the Constitution. However, when there are unreasonable delays, the Court has stipulated timelines in the past like in K. M. Singh case (2020) where it laid down a three-month timeframe for Speakers to decide on the Tenth Schedule disqualification.
The Supreme Court has purposively interpreted the words in Article 200 in its judgment in April 2025. It has interpreted that the main part of Article 200 uses the words ‘Governor shall’ and hence it is not a discretionary power. It relied on its own past judgments including the Nabam Rebia case (2006), the recommendations of various commissions as well as the Office Memorandum of the Home Ministry in 2016 to prescribe the timeline of three months for actions by Governors and the President.
The Centre and the Governors should follow the timeline prescribed by the April 2025 judgment to uphold democratic and federal principles. Hopefully, the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Presidential reference would also reiterate this position.
Rangarajan. R is a former IAS officer and author of ‘Courseware on Polity Simplified.’ He currently trains at Officers IAS academy. Views expressed are personal.
Published – September 22, 2025 08:30 am IST
