Why in news?

The Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot hold on to state legislature Bills indefinitely, emphasising that cooperative federalism requires constructive engagement with elected governments, not obstruction.

However, the Constitution Bench also held that courts cannot impose fixed timelines on Governors or the President for granting assent, nor can they create a doctrine of “deemed assent” or force the President to seek judicial advice on pending Bills.

The five-judge Bench—headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai—gave this opinion on a presidential reference asking whether constitutional courts could set deadlines for action under Articles 200 and 201, which deal with gubernatorial and presidential assent to Bills.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background of the Presidential Reference: Why the Issue Reached the Supreme Court?
• Supreme Court’s Stand on 14 Key Questions on Governor–President Powers

Background of the Presidential Reference: Why the Issue Reached the Supreme Court?

• President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) to seek the Supreme Court’s advice after controversy arose over delays by Governors and the President in acting on state Bills.
• The trigger was an April 8 judgment in a Tamil Nadu case, where a two-judge Bench laid down strict timelines for Governors and the President to decide on Bills.
• It also used Article 142 and declared 10 Tamil Nadu Bills as having received “deemed assent” because the Governor had not acted for long periods.
• This unprecedented move raised constitutional concerns.
• To resolve the ambiguity, the President submitted a five-page reference with 14 key questions.
• These questions asked:
  • whether courts can impose deadlines on constitutional authorities,
  • whether “deemed assent” is valid, and
  • what limits govern gubernatorial and presidential powers under Articles 200 and 201.

Supreme Court’s Stand on 14 Key Questions on Governor–President Powers

• Governor’s Options on Bills Under Article 200 - The Court held that a Governor has only three options: Grant assent; Reserve the Bill for the President. Withhold assent by returning the Bill for reconsideration. There is no power to withhold assent indefinitely.
  • Article 200 - Governor’s Assent to State Bills
• Governor’s Discretion Under Article 200 - The Governor is not bound by the Cabinet’s advice when deciding on assent, return, or reservation of Bills. This function involves independent constitutional discretion.
• Justiciability of Governor’s Actions - Courts cannot review the merits of the Governor’s decision, but prolonged, unexplained inaction is justiciable. The Court may direct the Governor to act.
• Article 361 Immunity Not Absolute - Article 361 protects the individual Governor, not the institutional office. Immunity cannot be used to justify indefinite delays.
  • Article 361 (Immunity of President and Governors) - Provides personal immunity to the President and Governors from court proceedings during their term, ensuring unhindered functioning in their constitutional roles.
• No Court-Imposed Timelines on Governor - Courts cannot prescribe deadlines for Governors to act on Bills. Article 200’s phrase “as soon as possible” does not permit fixed judicial timelines.
• President’s Discretion Under Article 201 - The President’s merit-based decision on assent or withholding assent to state Bills is not open to judicial review.
• No Timelines for President Either - Courts cannot fix time limits for the President under Article 201.
  • Article 201 – President’s Assent to Reserved Bills
• President Not Required to Seek SC Opinion - The President need not consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 whenever a Bill is reserved for consideration.
  • Article 143 (Presidential Reference to Supreme Court) - Allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on significant questions of law or fact. The Court’s advice is not binding; the President may accept or reject it.
• Courts Cannot Review Bills Before They Become Law - Judicial review applies only to laws, not Bills. Courts cannot examine the content or validity of a pending Bill.
• Article 142 Cannot Substitute Constitutional Powers - The Supreme Court cannot use Article 142 to create “deemed assent” or otherwise replace the Governor/President’s constitutional role.
• No Law Without Governor’s/President’s Assent - A Bill cannot become law unless the Governor or President formally grants assent.
• No Answer on Mandatory Referral Under Article 145(3) - The Court declined to answer whether all issues requiring constitutional interpretation must first be tested under Article 145(3).
  • Article 145(3) (Constitution Bench Requirement) - Mandates that a Bench of at least five judges must hear cases involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation or any Presidential Reference under Article 143.
• Scope of Article 142 - The Court refused a broad interpretation but reiterated that Article 142 cannot override the Constitution, especially requirements like legislative assent.
  • Article 142 (Complete Justice Provision) - Empowers the Supreme Court to issue any order necessary to ensure complete justice in cases before it.
• On Article 131 Jurisdiction - The Court declined to answer whether Article 131 is the exclusive route for resolving Centre–State disputes.
  • Article 131 (Centre–State Disputes) - Grants the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction to adjudicate legal disputes between the Union and States or among States themselves.
• No Judicial Substitution of Executive Power - Reaffirming earlier answers, the Court clarified that judicial powers cannot replace or replicate constitutionally assigned executive functions.