{"id":74364,"date":"2025-11-21T11:23:59","date_gmt":"2025-11-21T05:53:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=74364"},"modified":"2025-11-21T11:23:59","modified_gmt":"2025-11-21T05:53:59","slug":"supreme-court-clarifies-governors-powers-on-state-bills-and-legislative-assent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/supreme-court-clarifies-governors-powers-on-state-bills-and-legislative-assent\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Clarifies Governor\u2019s Powers on State Bills and Legislative Assent"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><b>Governor\u2019s Powers Latest News<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot hold on to state legislature Bills indefinitely, emphasising that cooperative federalism requires constructive engagement with elected governments, not obstruction.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">However, the Constitution Bench also held that courts <\/span><b>cannot impose fixed timelines<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> on Governors or the President for granting assent, <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">nor can they create a doctrine of \u201cdeemed assent<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201d or force the President to seek judicial advice on pending Bills.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The five-judge Bench\u2014headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai\u2014gave this opinion on a presidential reference asking whether constitutional courts could set deadlines for action under Articles 200 and 201, which deal with gubernatorial and presidential assent to Bills.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Background of the Presidential Reference: Why the Issue Reached the Supreme Court<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">President Droupadi Murmu invoked <\/span><b>Article 143(1)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> to seek the Supreme Court\u2019s advice after controversy arose over delays by Governors and the President in acting on state Bills.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The trigger was an April 8 judgment in a Tamil Nadu case, where a two-judge Bench laid down strict timelines for Governors and the President to decide on Bills.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It also used <\/span><b>Article 142<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and declared 10 Tamil Nadu Bills as having received \u201cdeemed assent\u201d because the Governor had not acted for long periods.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This unprecedented move raised constitutional concerns.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To resolve the ambiguity, the President submitted a five-page reference with 14 key questions.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">These questions asked:\u00a0<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">whether courts can impose deadlines on constitutional authorities,\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">whether \u201cdeemed assent\u201d is valid, and\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">what limits govern gubernatorial and presidential powers under Articles 200 and 201.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Supreme Court\u2019s Stand on 14 Key Questions on Governor\u2013President Powers<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Governor\u2019s Options on Bills Under Article 200<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; The Court held that a Governor has only three options: Grant assent; Reserve the Bill for the President. Withhold assent by returning the Bill for reconsideration. There is no power to withhold assent indefinitely.<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 200 &#8211; Governor\u2019s Assent to State Bills<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li aria-level=\"1\"><b>Governor\u2019s Discretion Under Article 200 &#8211; <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Governor is <\/span><b>not bound<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> by the Cabinet\u2019s advice when deciding on assent, return, or reservation of Bills. This function involves independent constitutional discretion.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Justiciability of Governor\u2019s Actions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; Courts cannot review the merits of the Governor\u2019s decision, but prolonged, unexplained inaction is justiciable. The Court may direct the Governor to act.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Article 361 Immunity Not Absolute<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; Article 361 protects the individual Governor, not the institutional office. <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Immunity cannot be used to justify indefinite delays<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 361 (Immunity of President and Governors) &#8211; Provides personal immunity to the President and Governors from court proceedings during their term, ensuring unhindered functioning in their constitutional roles.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>No Court-Imposed Timelines on Governor<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; Courts <\/span><b>cannot <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">prescribe deadlines for Governors to act on Bills. Article 200\u2019s phrase \u201cas soon as possible\u201d does not permit fixed judicial timelines.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>President\u2019s Discretion Under Article 201<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; The President\u2019s merit-based decision on assent or withholding assent to state Bills is not open to judicial review.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>No Timelines for President Either<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; Courts cannot fix time limits for the President under Article 201.<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 201 \u2013 President\u2019s Assent to Reserved Bills<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>President Not Required to Seek SC Opinion<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; The President need not consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 whenever a Bill is reserved for consideration.<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 143 (Presidential Reference to Supreme Court) &#8211; Allows the President to seek the Supreme Court\u2019s advisory opinion on significant questions of law or fact. The Court\u2019s advice is not binding; the President may accept or reject it.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Courts Cannot Review Bills Before They Become Law<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; Judicial review applies only to laws, not Bills. Courts cannot examine the content or validity of a pending Bill.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Article 142 Cannot Substitute Constitutional Powers<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; The Supreme Court cannot use Article 142 to create \u201cdeemed assent\u201d or otherwise replace the Governor\/President\u2019s constitutional role.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>No Law Without Governor\u2019s\/President\u2019s Assent<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; A Bill cannot become law unless the Governor or President formally grants assent.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>No Answer on Mandatory Referral Under Article 145(3)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; The Court declined to answer whether all issues requiring constitutional interpretation must first be tested under Article 145(3).<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 145(3) (Constitution Bench Requirement) &#8211; Mandates that a Bench of at least five judges must hear cases involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation or any Presidential Reference under Article 143.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Scope of Article 142<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; The Court refused a broad interpretation but reiterated that Article 142 cannot override the Constitution, especially requirements like legislative assent.<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 142 (Complete Justice Provision) &#8211; Empowers the Supreme Court to issue any order necessary to ensure complete justice in cases before it.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>On Article 131 Jurisdiction<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; The Court declined to answer whether Article 131 is the exclusive route for resolving Centre\u2013State disputes.<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 131 (Centre\u2013State Disputes) &#8211; Grants the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction to adjudicate legal disputes between the Union and States or among States themselves.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>No Judicial Substitution of Executive Power<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; Reaffirming earlier answers, the Court clarified that judicial powers cannot replace or replicate constitutionally assigned executive functions.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Source:<\/b> <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/everyday-explainers\/why-gujarat-police-is-tracking-anti-nationals-from-the-past-30-years-10376562\/?ref=infinite\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">IE<\/a> | <a href=\"https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/presidential-reference-governors-cant-stall-bills-but-courts-cant-fix-timelines-key-sc-verdict-explained\/articleshowprint\/125457398.cms\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">ToI<\/a> | <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ndtv.com\/india-news\/supreme-court-news-supreme-court-on-tamil-nadu-governor-rn-ravi-case-supreme-court-on-presidential-reference-droupadi-murmu-9668625\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">NDTV<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court clarifies Governor\u2019s powers on state Bills, rejecting deemed assent, prohibiting indefinite delays, and defining limits of judicial timelines under Articles 200 and 201.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":74390,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[3803,60,22,59],"class_list":{"0":"post-74364","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","8":"tag-governors-powers","9":"tag-mains-articles","10":"tag-upsc-current-affairs","11":"tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs","12":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74364","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74364"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74364\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74390"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}