Presidential Reference on Timelines for Governor and President’s Assent

The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential Reference under Article 143 on July 22, 2025, seeking clarity on whether courts can impose timelines on the President and Governors while assenting to state bills under Articles 200 and 201.

Filed by the Union Government in May 2025, citing repeated delays by Governors in acting on bills passed by state legislatures.

The reference arises amid federal tensions, especially in states like Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Kerala.

The SC Constitution Bench will interpret whether constitutional authorities like the President/Governor can be time-bound by judicial orders.

No constitutional timeline exists currently; a gap this reference seeks to address.

Constitutional Provisions and Federal Dynamics

Article 143- Presidential Reference to SC:

• This article enables the President of India to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on legal questions of public importance, providing a crucial mechanism for legal clarity before executive decisions.
• The Supreme Court’s opinion is not legally binding on the President, but it carries strong constitutional influence and moral authority, making it highly persuasive in practice.
•  e.g.: This power was notably used in the Berubari Union case (1960) to clarify Parliament’s power to cede territory and in the Ayodhya case (1994) regarding the existence of a temple at the disputed site.
•  The President can refer a question of law or fact to the SC under Article 143(1), and in certain pre-Constitution treaty disputes, the Court must give its opinion under Article 143(2).

Article 200-Governor’s Assent to State Bills:

• This article outlines the Governor’s powers regarding bills passed by the State Legislature, offering four main options: assent to the bill, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration (if not a Money Bill), or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration.
•  A critical point is that the Constitution does not specify a time limit within which the Governor must act on a bill, allowing for potential political delay or inaction.
• This ambiguity has become a key federal issue in India, particularly in states governed by opposition parties, leading to legislative bottlenecks and accusations of gubernatorial overreach.
•  The provision includes a “as soon as possible” clause for returning bills, but this is not a strict time limit and has been a subject of judicial interpretation.

Article 201- President’s Power on Reserved Bills:

• When a Governor reserves a state bill for the President’s consideration under Article 200, Article 201 dictates the President’s options: assent to the bill, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the bill to the state legislature for reconsideration.
•  Similar to Article 200, there is no constitutionally mandated time-bound response requirement for the President on reserved bills.
•  This dual absence of time limits at both the gubernatorial and presidential levels can create prolonged legislative uncertainty and a vacuum, significantly impacting the principles of cooperative federalism and leading to friction between the Union and states.
•  Unlike the Governor, the President is not constitutionally bound to assent to a state bill even if it is passed again after being returned

Judicial Review vs. Separation of Powers:

•  The ongoing issue of Governors and the President delaying assent to bills raises a fundamental constitutional dilemma: Can the judiciary legitimately set specific deadlines for the functioning of other constitutional authorities?
• This question directly tests the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of India’s democratic structure, where each branch (legislature, executive, judiciary) is meant to operate independently within its defined sphere.
•  Any judicial intervention or ruling on this matter could potentially clarify the constitutional boundaries between judicial oversight and the discretionary powers vested in the executive (Governor/President), setting important precedents for constitutional governance.

Relevant Case Law – Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016):

•  In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on the powers of the Governor, primarily holding that the Governor must act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in legislative matters, except in very specific circumstances where the Constitution explicitly grants discretion.
•  This judgment reaffirmed the crucial constitutional principle of federal balance and emphasized the importance of constitutional morality in the actions of all constitutional functionaries.
•  While the case primarily dealt with the Governor’s role in summoning/dissolving the assembly and the Speaker’s powers of disqualification, its broader implications underscore the need for Governors to act in harmony with the elected state government and the spirit of the Constitution.