Why in the News?

• The Supreme Court has issued a significant advisory opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution, responding to a Presidential reference triggered by a two-judge Bench judgment from April 2025 related to delays in assent to State Bills.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Court’s Advisory (Background, Scope of Questions, Key Takeaways, Issues, Way Forward)

Background to the Presidential Reference

• The Presidential reference arose due to the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, which:

• Mandated a three-month timeline for Governors and the President to act on Bills,
• Declared such decisions judicially reviewable,
• Exercised Article 142 powers to grant “deemed assent” to several pending Tamil Nadu Bills.

• This ruling generated constitutional uncertainty, prompting the Union government to seek clarification on:

• Whether courts can prescribe timelines?
• Whether presidential inaction is justiciable?
• Whether the Supreme Court’s Article 142 powers can override constitutional provisions?

Scope of Questions Raised in the Reference

• The reference placed 14 constitutional questions before a Constitution Bench, primarily relating to:

• Interpretation of Article 200 and Article 201 regarding assent to State Bills,
• Whether courts can intervene before a Bill becomes law,
• The justiciability of delays,
• The permissible boundaries of Article 142.

• These questions went to the heart of India’s federal structure and the functional relationship among State legislatures, Governors, and the Union.

Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Advisory Opinion

• The five-judge Bench delivered a comprehensive opinion, which reshapes constitutional understanding on several fronts.
• Governor’s Options Under Article 200
  • The Court clarified that a Governor has three constitutionally recognised choices when presented with a Bill:

• Assent,
• Reserve the Bill for Presidential consideration,
• Withhold assent and return the Bill to the legislature with observations.
  These options are explicitly grounded in the constitutional text.

• Discretion of the Governor
  • The Court held that the Governor enjoys discretion in choosing among these options and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers regarding assent-related decisions.
  • This interpretation marks a significant shift from earlier decisions such as Shamsher Singh (1974) and Nabam Rebia (2016), which emphasised the primacy of ministerial advice.
• Limited Justiciability

• Governor’s actions under Article 200 are generally not justiciable,
• However, in cases of “glaring prolonged and unexplained inaction”, courts may issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to act,
• Courts cannot review the validity of the Governor/President’s decision before a Bill becomes law.

• No Judicial Timelines
  • A key reversal of the April 2025 judgment: the Court held that in the absence of constitutional timelines, the judiciary cannot prescribe time limits for Governors or the President to act on Bills.
• No ‘Deemed Assent’
  • The Court strongly rejected the concept of “deemed assent,” holding that the judiciary cannot substitute executive authority through Article 142. Assent-related decisions belong exclusively to the Governor or President.

Issues Arising from the Opinion

• Potential Undermining of Legislative Intent
  • The Court’s recognition of wide gubernatorial discretion contradicts earlier judicial positions and expert committee recommendations.
  • The Sarkaria Commission (1987) held that reserving Bills for the President should occur rarely, and only in cases of clear unconstitutionality.

• Earlier Supreme Court cases insisted that Governors act on ministerial advice, not independent discretion.
• The current opinion risks allowing Governors to delay or derail the legislative agenda of elected State governments.

• Concerns Over Lack of Timelines
  • The Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended a six-month limit for gubernatorial decisions.
  • The Supreme Court itself had earlier set non-textual timelines (e.g., in K.M. Singh, three months for Speakers to decide disqualification petitions).
  • Thus, critics argue that judicially crafted timelines can be constitutionally permissible when required to uphold democratic functioning.
  • The current advisory opinion rejects such purposive interpretation.

Way Forward

• While the Governor represents the Union and the ideal of national unity, federalism is a basic structure of the Constitution. Moving forward:

• Governors must exercise constitutional powers with responsible urgency,
• The Centre must ensure the office is not used to thwart State governments,
• Judicial oversight must remain available to prevent constitutional paralysis while respecting the separation of powers.