JudiciaryImportant2025-11-20

SC Advisory Opinion on Governor's Assent

Why focus: GS2 Polity: Constitution Bench on Article 200/201 assent powers. Near-guaranteed test of 'deemed assent' in Assertion-Reason format.

In News

What Happened

On November 20, 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered an advisory opinion on Presidential Reference No. 1 of 2025. The Court ruled that the judiciary cannot prescribe binding timelines for Governors or the President to act on State Bills. Furthermore, it overturned the 'deemed assent' doctrine and declared that the exercise of powers under Articles 200 and 201 is non-justiciable before a bill becomes law.

Why It Matters

This judgment reaffirms the strict separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive by preventing courts from micromanaging the legislative process. It shifts the responsibility back to constitutional functionaries to respect democratic mandates without judicial coercion.

Background

History & Context

The prolonged delay by Governors in giving assent to state bills has been a major friction point between state governments and the Centre. The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) previously recommended setting a six-month time limit for Governors to decide on bills. Despite the Supreme Court's 2023 observation in the Punjab Governor case that bills cannot be kept pending indefinitely, the absence of an explicit constitutional timeline led to this 2025 Presidential Reference under Article 143.

What Changed

▶
BEFORE: Various legal interpretations debated the existence of a 'deemed assent' doctrine if a Governor delayed a bill for an unreasonable period. NOW: The Supreme Court explicitly struck down the 'deemed assent' doctrine, clarifying that assent must be a positive, explicit act.
▶
BEFORE: State governments frequently approached constitutional courts seeking writs to compel Governors to clear pending bills. NOW: Courts cannot issue writs or prescribe mandatory timelines for the Governor or President to act on bills under Articles 200 and 201.
▶
BEFORE: The boundary of judicial review regarding a Governor's inaction was a constitutional gray area. NOW: The Court explicitly declared that the executive's exercise of assent powers is non-justiciable before the bill actually becomes an enacted law.

Prelims Angle

NCERT Connection

This judgment directly applies concepts from Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6 - Judiciary. It illustrates the practical limits of Judicial Review and the Separation of Powers, showing how the Supreme Court restrains itself from interfering in the internal legislative and executive procedures of passing a bill.

Practice Questions

Q1

With Reference To

With reference to the powers of the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements: 1. The Constitution explicitly mandates a maximum six-month timeline for the Governor to act on a Bill passed by the State Legislature. 2. The Governor is constitutionally bound to reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President if it endangers the position of the State High Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Up next