When a Governor delays Bills passed by an elected Legislature, the question is not political but constitutional: Can a constitutional head stall the law-making process through inaction?
This central issue came before the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) and later in the Presidential Reference decided on 20 November 2025.
Both decisions together now form the authoritative interpretation of Articles 200 and 201, governing how Governors and the President deal with Bills. This blog explains the background, the two judgments, and the fourteen constitutional questions answered by the Constitution Bench.
Background: How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed several Bills concerning university administration, appointments of Vice-Chancellors, powers of state authorities, and other governance matters. These Bills were sent to the Governor for assent as required under Article 200.
However, many of these Bills remained pending before the Governor for unusually long periods.
Some Bills were not acted upon for over two years.
The State government argued that such prolonged inaction defeated the constitutional requirement that the Governor must act “as soon as possible.”
In October 2023, Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court alleging constitutional breakdown. When the Court sought an explanation for the delay, the Governor suddenly withheld assent to ten Bills, causing the Assembly to reconsider and re-pass them. After the reconsideration, instead of granting assent, the Governor reserved all ten Bills for the President.
This chain of events raised serious constitutional questions about delay, withholding, reservation, and the scope of the Governor’s power.
THE APRIL 2025 JUDGMENT
Supreme Court’s Findings (8 April 2025)
The Supreme Court delivered a detailed judgment on the Governor’s conduct. The Court made several important observations regarding Articles 200 and 201 by the two-judge bench.
Governor Must Act “As Soon As Possible”
The Court held that indefinite inaction by the Governor is not permitted under the constitutional scheme. Article 200 obligates the Governor to act within a reasonable time. Keeping Bills pending for years without a decision was described as a constitutional breach.
Withholding Assent Requires Returning the Bill
The Court clarified that when a Governor withholds assent, he must return the Bill to the Legislature with a message. Withholding without sending it back is not allowed.
Thus, withholding is not a passive power but a structured constitutional step.
Governor Cannot Reserve Re-Passed Bills Except in Narrow Cases
Once the Legislature re-passes a Bill after reconsideration, the Governor is generally required to grant assent. The Court held that reserving such re-passed Bills for the President violated the constitutional structure, except in rare circumstances where reservation is mandatory.
The Court found the reservation of the ten re-passed Tamil Nadu Bills to be constitutionally improper.
Constitutional Breach and Its Remedy
The Court described the sequence of delay, withholding, and reservation as a breakdown of constitutional duty.
To remedy the situation, the Court invoked Article 142, declaring that the ten Bills shall be treated as having received assent on the date they were re-sent by the Legislature. This extraordinary step was used to prevent further damage to the legislative process.
Broad Timelines Were Suggested
Though not binding, the Court indicated approximate timelines for the Governor and President to act, ensuring that in future, constitutional authorities would not cause unreasonable delay.
The April judgment therefore strongly protected the legislative process and clarified that the Governor’s powers must operate within constitutional limits, not political considerations.
THE PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE
Why Fourteen Questions Were Sent to the Supreme Court
The April ruling contained strong observations, particularly the use of Article 142 and the indication of timelines. To avoid future uncertainty and provide clarity for all States, the President made a reference under Article 143, asking the Supreme Court to answer fourteen constitutional questions.
These questions concerned the exact limits of Governor’s discretion, the nature of judicial review, the extent of the President’s powers under Article 201, and whether courts can impose deadlines or treat Bills as assented.
14 Questions in the Presidential Reference and the Supreme Court’s Answers (20 November 2025)
| Q. No. | Question Referred | Accurate Answer Given by the Supreme Court |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | What options does the Governor have under Article 200? | The Governor has only three options: (i) assent to the Bill, (ii) return the Bill to the Legislature with a message, or (iii) reserve the Bill for the President. There is no option to keep a Bill pending or silently withhold assent. |
| 2 | Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 200? | The Governor is not fully bound by ministerial advice for decisions under Article 200. The Court held that dealing with Bills involves an element of constitutional discretion, especially regarding reservation for the President. |
| 3 | Is the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 justiciable? | Courts cannot review the merits of the Governor’s decision. However, unreasonable, prolonged, and unexplained delay is subject to limited judicial review. Courts may direct the Governor to take a decision but cannot dictate the outcome. |
| 4 | Does Article 361 bar judicial review of the Governor’s actions? | Article 361 protects the person of the Governor, not the office. Courts can review the constitutional inaction of the office. The Governor cannot be personally summoned, but his official conduct is reviewable. |
| 5 | Can courts impose timelines on the Governor under Article 200? | Courts cannot impose rigid timelines. The phrase “as soon as possible” is flexible. Judicial intervention is permitted only when delay becomes prolonged, unexplained, or unreasonable. |
| 6 | Is the President’s discretion under Article 201 justiciable? | The merits of the President’s decision are not reviewable. But, like the Governor, extreme, unjustified delay may attract limited judicial scrutiny to ensure action is taken. |
| 7 | Can courts impose timelines on the President under Article 201? | No. Courts cannot prescribe strict time limits for the President’s decision on reserved Bills. They may intervene only where there is clear constitutional inaction. |
| 8 | Must the President seek the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 whenever a Bill is reserved? | No. Seeking advice under Article 143 is discretionary, not mandatory. The President is not required to approach the Supreme Court for every reserved Bill. |
| 9 | Are decisions on assent justiciable before a Bill becomes law? | Courts cannot examine the contents of a Bill before it becomes law. They may, however, review procedural inaction or unconstitutional delay by the Governor or President. |
| 10 | Can Article 142 be used to substitute the Governor’s or President’s role (for example, deemed assent)? | No. Article 142 cannot be used to create deemed assent or to perform the constitutional role of the Governor or President. The Court explicitly ruled that such a remedy cannot be used in future. |
| 11 | Can a State law exist without the Governor’s or President’s assent? | No. A Bill becomes law only after completing the constitutional process, including assent where required. Without fulfilment of Articles 200 and 201, a Bill does not become law. |
| 12 | Must every substantial constitutional question be referred to a five-judge bench under Article 145(3)? | The Court declined to answer. It held that this question was not necessary to decide in the context of the assent reference. |
| 13 | Does Article 142 permit directions contrary to constitutional provisions? | The Court refused to give a wide answer. It clarified only that Article 142 cannot override or replace the constitutional scheme governing assent under Articles 200 and 201. |
| 14 | Is Article 131 the only way to resolve Union–State disputes? | The Court did not answer this question. It held that this issue was unrelated to the specific reference on assent to Bills. |
THE NOVEMBER 2025 CONSTITUTION BENCH OPINION
The five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a comprehensive advisory opinion, refining the law for the future.
No Fixed Judicial Timelines
The Bench held that courts cannot impose strict or universal timelines on the Governor or President under Articles 200 or 201.
The expression “as soon as possible” imposes a duty of timely action, but courts cannot judicially convert it into a fixed number of days.
This clarification modified the April judgment’s suggested timelines.
No “Deemed Assent” Through Judicial Power
The Constitution Bench held that courts cannot create a legal fiction that a Bill has received assent merely because the Governor delayed action. Courts cannot use Article 142 to assume the powers of the Governor or President.
Thus, the April ruling’s Article 142 remedy was described as not available for future cases.
However, Inaction Is Still Justiciable
The Bench clarified that while courts cannot dictate the outcome, they CAN examine whether the Governor or President is failing to act within a reasonable time.
Indefinite, unexplained, prolonged inaction can attract judicial direction requiring the authority to take a decision.
This ensures that constitutional functionaries do not frustrate the legislative process.
Governor Has Three Options, Not Four
The Constitution Bench reaffirmed that the Governor has only three constitutionally recognised actions under Article 200:
- Grant assent
- Withhold assent and return the Bill with a message
- Reserve the Bill for the President
The Bench emphasised that the Governor cannot simply withhold a Bill without returning it.
Governor’s Discretion Exists, But Within Limits
The Court held that the Governor has limited discretion under Article 200.
He is not universally bound by the Council of Ministers, especially in matters where reservation for the President is constitutionally appropriate.
However, this discretion cannot be used to indefinitely delay Bills or to obstruct the Legislature.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF BOTH DECISIONS
A New Constitutional Balance
Taken together, the April judgment and the November advisory create a balanced and coherent framework:
1. The Legislature’s Primacy Is Protected
The Governor cannot defeat the legislative process by silence or delay.
2. Judicial Power Has Clear Boundaries
Courts cannot directly approve Bills or impose rigid timelines, but they can prevent constitutional stagnation.
3. The Governor’s Role Is Clarified
Discretion is permitted, but it must be exercised in good faith and within constitutional boundaries.
4. Federal Structure Is Strengthened
States now have a clearer remedy against unreasonable delay, while the Governor’s constitutional identity is respected.
FINAL INSIGHT
The combined effect of the April and November 2025 decisions is that the Constitution now has a clarified, stable, and workable interpretation of Articles 200 and 201.
Governors cannot block legislation through inaction, yet courts cannot step into their shoes. Judicial review acts as a safeguard, ensuring that constitutional authorities fulfil their duties without compromising the democratic process.