Relevance: GS-2 (Polity – Federalism, Executive); Source: Supreme Court Opinion (Nov 2025), Indian Express

The Story So Far

A Presidential Reference under Article 143 sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on the powers of Governors and the President in handling Bills passed by State legislatures.
 This arose from the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025) judgment where a two-judge Bench fixed a three-month limit for Governors and the President to act on Bills and validated deemed assent to Bills withheld by the Governor.

The Union government questioned this interpretation, referring 14 issues to the Supreme Court.

What Was Referred to the Supreme Court?

The reference primarily sought clarity on:

  • Whether the Governor/President must act within a prescribed time on Bills.
  • Whether ‘deemed assent’ exists in the Constitution.
  • Whether courts can judicially review delays by the Governor/President.
  • The scope of Article 200 (Governor’s role on Bills) and Article 201 (President’s role).
  • Whether the Court can invoke Article 142 to fix timelines.

Supreme Court’s Current Opinion (Nov 2025)

A five-judge Bench largely overturned the April 2025 judgment. Key points:

1. Governor has three constitutional options (Article 200)

  • Give assent
  • Withhold assent
  • Return the Bill for reconsideration
     These are discretionary choices, but should normally follow the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (consistent with Shamsher Singh, 1974; Nabam Rebia, 2016).

2. Court cannot prescribe timelines

The Constitution provides no fixed time limits, so courts cannot impose a three-month or six-month deadline.

3. ‘Deemed Assent’ has no constitutional basis

The Court held that inventing such a concept amounts to rewriting the Constitution.

4. Article 142 cannot override the Constitution

Extraordinary powers cannot substitute what the Constitution explicitly provides.

5. Bills are not justiciable before they become law

Courts cannot intervene until the Bill becomes an Act, except in rare cases of patent unconstitutional inaction.

Persisting Challenges & Possible Solutions

Challenges

Possible Solutions

No time limit → Executive delays stall elected legislatures.Parliamentary/State law may fix reasonable timelines without amending the Constitution as suggested by the Punchi Commission. 
Politicisation of Governor’s office affects cooperative federalism.Mandatory adherence to aid & advice, except in narrowly defined discretionary matters.
Unequal handling of Bills across StatesA uniform national protocol for processing Bills.
Judicial vacuum during prolonged inactionLimited judicial review for exceptional, mala fide delays.

One-Line Wrap

The Supreme Court clarified that while Governors must act on Bills without political delay, courts cannot impose timelines or create ‘deemed assent’ not provided in the Constitution.

UPSC Mains Question

“Discuss the constitutional powers of the Governor over State Bills and critically analyse the Supreme Court’s 2025 opinion on time limits and deemed assent.”

To read in depth about the issue, visit : SOURCE

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

[fusion_widget type=”WP_Widget_Recent_Posts” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” fusion_display_title=”yes” fusion_border_size=”0″ fusion_border_style=”solid” wp_widget_recent_posts__number=”5″ wp_widget_recent_posts__show_date=”off” /]

Start Yours at Ajmal IAS – with Mentorship StrategyDisciplineClarityResults that Drives Success

Your dream deserves this moment — begin it here.