SPECIAL REFERENCE NO. 1 of 2025

Overview

The Supreme Court advisory opinion is one of the most significant constitutional pronouncements in recent years regarding persistent friction between State Governments and their Governors on the assent of Bills. Referred by the President of India under Article 143(1), the reference involved what was required to ensure clarity on whether Governors and the President can withhold or refuse assent to Bills, what are the enablement options open to them, what are the limits to discretion, and the purview of judicial review. 

Background

In recent years, several Governors were accused of indefinitely withholding assent to Bills; not acting upon advice of the Cabinet or reserving Bills for the consideration of the President without constitutional justification. Such a delay was leading to legislative paralysis with a serious adverse impact on Centre-State relations. Several writ petitions in this regard were already pending, including those filed by the State of Tamil Nadu. In view of the conflicting judicial precedents, the President sought an authoritative judicial interpretation to resolve confusion affecting the federal structure. The questions that arise touch the functioning of government, the separation of powers, and constitutional morality, and thus the advisory reference is both urgent and proper. 

Legal Issues

1. What are the Governor’s options under Article 200?
2. Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?
3. Can the Governor or President delay a Bill indefinitely?
4. Are their decisions under Articles 200–201 subject to judicial review?
5. Does Article 361 immunise these decisions from scrutiny?
6. Whether the doctrine of “deemed assent” is constitutionally valid?
7. Whether the Supreme Court can prescribe timelines or give binding directions?

The Court addressed whether the reference was maintainable despite parallel litigation, and how its advisory role interacted with principles of federalism.

Decision

The Court held that the reference maintainable, noting that Article 143 is meant to resolve constitutional ambiguities of national significance. Coming to the substantive issues, the Court clarified that the power of the Governor is strictly limited. Under Article 200, the options available to the Governor are four in number: assent; withhold assent; return the Bill (if not a Money Bill); and reserve it for consideration by the President. These are the only options, and no incidental or inherent right to delay is there. And if a Bill sent back by the Governor is presented again by the Legislature, he has to give his assent.

The Court has held that the Governor is normally obliged to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers, and reservation of Bills for the President is permitted only on specific constitutional grounds. Arbitrary or politically motivated reservations violate federal principles and are open to judicial scrutiny.

On timelines, the Court held that the Governor or the President shall not make infinite delays. They should act within a reasonable time, to be inferred from the democratic norms and constitutional accountability, and the requirement of continuity in governance. Article 361 does not immunise the decisions of the authorities from judicial review, but only the personal liability. The courts can scrutinise mala fides or undue delay, or unconstitutional exercise of power.

The Court rejected “deemed assent” on the basis that courts cannot add words to, or insert provisions into, constitutional texts. However, the Court asserted its power under Article 142 to issue directions to ensure compliance with the constitutional mandate where delay impaired democratic functioning.