New Delhi, November 20, 2025
In a move that could redefine the delicate balance of power between India's elected state governments and their appointed constitutional heads, the Supreme Court of India is poised to deliver its advisory opinion today on a Presidential Reference invoking Article 143 of the Constitution. The reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu on May 13, 2025, raises 14 pivotal constitutional questions surrounding the powers of Governors and the President in granting or withholding assent to state bills under Articles 200 and 201.
The proceedings stem from escalating tensions between state governments—particularly those led by opposition parties—and Governors, who are seen by many as extensions of the Union government. At the heart of the matter is a landmark April 2024 Supreme Court judgment in *State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu*, where a two-judge bench declared Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's indefinite withholding of 10 bills passed by the state assembly as "illegal and erroneous." The court intervened to allow the Tamil Nadu government to notify those bills, effectively bypassing the Governor's reservation for presidential consideration.
### The Spark: Tamil Nadu's Bill Standoff and Implied Timelines
The Tamil Nadu case highlighted a recurring flashpoint in Indian federalism. Under Article 200, a Governor has three options upon receiving a bill from the state legislature: grant assent, withhold assent, or return it for reconsideration (if it's not a money bill). If returned and re-passed, the Governor must assent. For bills reserved by the Governor for the President's consideration under Article 201, the President holds similar powers.
In the 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court went further, imposing timelines absent from the Constitution itself: Governors must act within one month on re-enacted bills, and the President within three months on reserved bills. The bench argued that such delays create "indefinite and uncertain abeyance," paralyzing state legislation and undermining democratic mandates. This judicial innovation prompted the Presidential Reference, questioning whether courts can "legislate" timelines or review discretionary powers traditionally shielded from interference.
The reference arrived amid similar disputes in states like Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal, where Governors have delayed or blocked bills on issues ranging from university appointments to welfare schemes, fueling accusations of partisan overreach.
### The 14 Questions: Probing Judicial Overreach?
President Murmu's five-page reference meticulously challenges the judiciary's role in executive functions. A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai—comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar—heard arguments in September 2025 before reserving judgment. The questions, as extracted from the reference, are:
1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
2. Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
5. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
7. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can time lines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?
8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent or otherwise?
9. Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?
10. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President/Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?
11. Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
12. In view of the proviso to Article 145 (3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this Hon’ble Court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges?
13. Do the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions /passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?
14. Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?
These queries touch on core issues: the justiciability of gubernatorial and presidential discretion, the scope of judicial review under Article 361 (which grants immunity to the President and Governors), and whether Article 142—empowering the court to do "complete justice"—allows overriding constitutional silences.
### Stakes for Federalism and Beyond
Legal experts view this as a rare "President vs. Judiciary" showdown, the first such reference since 2016 on the National Judicial Appointments Commission. A ruling upholding the timelines could strengthen state autonomy, curbing what critics call "Governor Raj." Conversely, a reversal might restore unchecked executive discretion, potentially exacerbating Centre-state frictions.
As the bench prepares to pronounce its verdict this afternoon, all eyes are on whether the court will affirm its proactive role in federal disputes or defer to constitutional text. The opinion, though advisory and non-binding, carries immense persuasive weight and could influence ongoing cases in multiple states.
This development underscores the evolving dynamics of India's constitutional framework, where judicial interventions continue to shape the contours of power-sharing in the world's largest democracy. Updates on the verdict will follow as they emerge.
For More News Updates Follow Us On Www.tconews.in
