Question 1

The Supreme Court mandated a strict 3-month deadline for Governors to approve or reject bills.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court actually reversed an earlier 2025 ruling that had set a 3-month deadline, stating that imposing rigid judicial timelines on constitutional functionaries under Article 200 violates the separation of powers.

Question 2

If a Governor sits on a bill indefinitely, it automatically becomes law through 'deemed assent'.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court explicitly ruled that 'deemed assent' is unconstitutional and cannot be invoked even under Article 142, as assent requires an affirmative executive act.

Question 3

The Governor must always act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when granting assent to a bill.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court clarified that when deciding among the options in Article 200 (assent, withhold, reserve), the Governor exercises independent constitutional discretion and is not bound by the State Cabinet's advice.

Question 4

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's 2025 advisory opinion in the 16th Presidential Reference:
1. The Court ruled that the Governor is strictly bound by the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers when exercising options under Article 200.
2. The concept of 'deemed assent' imposed by constitutional courts using Article 142 was declared a violation of the separation of powers.
3. The Supreme Court held that prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction by a Governor on State Bills is subject to limited judicial review.
How many of the statements given above are correct?

Accepted Answer

(b) Only two — Statement 1 is incorrect: The Supreme Court clarified that the Governor exercises independent constitutional discretion under Article 200 and is NOT bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers at this stage. Statement 2 is correct: 'Deemed assent' was struck down as an unconstitutional takeover of executive functions. Statement 3 is correct: While merit review is barred and strict timelines cannot be imposed, 'prolonged, unexplained inaction' is subject to limited judicial review (mandamus to act).

Question 5

Match the Constitutional provisions with their interpretation as clarified in the 2025 Presidential Reference (In re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills):

List I (Provision)
A. First Proviso to Article 200
B. Article 201
C. Article 143(1)
D. Article 142

List II (Interpretation/Application)
1. Plenary power explicitly barred from creating 'deemed assent' for bills.
2. The mechanism obligating the Governor to initiate a dialogic process by returning non-money bills.
3. Grants non-justiciable discretionary power to the President over reserved State legislation.
4. Used by the President to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on 14 questions of law.

Accepted Answer

(a) A-2, B-3, C-4, D-1 — A matches 2: The first proviso to Article 200 requires the Governor to return a non-money bill with a message, establishing a legislative-executive dialogic process. B matches 3: Article 201 deals with the President's power over reserved bills, which the Court ruled is non-justiciable. C matches 4: Article 143(1) is the advisory jurisdiction used to file the 16th Presidential Reference. D matches 1: The Court ruled Article 142 cannot be used to bypass the Constitution by inventing 'deemed assent'.

Question 6

Assertion (A): Following the 2025 Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court cannot examine the substantive merits of a Governor's decision to withhold assent to a Bill before it becomes law.
Reason (R): The Governor's constitutional functions under Article 200 are absolutely immune from all forms of judicial review to maintain federal flexibility.
Select the correct answer:

Accepted Answer

(c) A is true but R is false. — Assertion (A) is true: The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the decisions of the Governor are not justiciable on merits at a stage anterior to the law coming into force. Reason (R) is false: The Governor's functions do NOT enjoy 'absolute immunity' from all forms of judicial review. The Court carved out a specific exception stating that 'prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction' can invite limited judicial review to compel the Governor to take a decision.

SC Clarifies Governor Assent Powers

Sundarbans Becomes India's Second Largest Tiger Reserve