Polity & GovernancePriority2025-07-22

SC Constitution Bench Hears Presidential Reference

Why focus: Constitution Bench on Article 143/200/201—core GS2 Polity, highly probable for Assertion-Reason on gubernatorial assent powers.

In News

What Happened

On November 20, 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai delivered its advisory opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference. The Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary cannot impose strict deadlines on the President or Governors for granting assent to State Bills, and struck down the concept of 'deemed assent' (automatic approval of delayed bills) as unconstitutional.

Why It Matters

This landmark opinion restores the constitutional balance by preventing the judiciary from dictating timelines to the executive, upholding the Separation of Powers. However, by banning 'pocket vetoes' through silent inaction and allowing limited judicial review for 'unexplained delays,' it attempts to prevent Governors from permanently paralyzing elected state governments.

Background

History & Context

The constitutional friction reached a boiling point due to recurring standoffs between opposition-ruled states (like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab) and their Governors, who were indefinitely sitting on passed legislation. In a polarizing judgment on April 8, 2025 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu), a two-judge Supreme Court bench broke constitutional silence by setting strict timelines—mandating Governors to return a bill within three months—and controversially invoked Article 142 to declare 'deemed assent' for stalled bills. Viewing this as judicial overreach, the Union Government advised President Droupadi Murmu to invoke Article 143(1) on May 15, 2025. This became the 16th Presidential Reference, laying out 14 questions to a Constitution Bench regarding the true scope of Articles 200, 201, and 142.

What Changed

▶
No Fixed Timelines: BEFORE, the April 2025 judgment enforced strict deadlines (e.g., one month for a Governor to act, three months to return a bill). NOW, the Court ruled that judicially prescribing timelines violates the Constitution's intended elasticity and the Separation of Powers.
▶
Deemed Assent Abolished: BEFORE, courts could use Article 142 to enforce 'deemed assent', treating a delayed bill as automatically passed. NOW, the Court declared 'deemed assent' alien to the Constitution; the judiciary cannot substitute the legislative assent of the Governor or President.
▶
End to the Silent Pocket Veto: BEFORE, Governors often withheld assent indefinitely without giving reasons. NOW, the Court clarified that under Article 200, the option to 'withhold assent' is inextricably linked to the obligation to return the non-Money Bill to the legislature with a message; absolute inaction is unconstitutional.
▶
Presidential Immunity from Deadlines: BEFORE, the April 2025 ruling applied a three-month deadline to the President under Article 201. NOW, the President's powers are also free from judicially imposed timelines.
▶
Limited Judicial Review Introduced: BEFORE, Governors claimed total non-justiciability for their delays under Article 361. NOW, while the merits of a Governor's decision remain beyond judicial scrutiny, 'prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction' can trigger a limited writ of mandamus from the courts ordering the Governor to take action.

What Did NOT Change

The fundamental framework of Articles 200 and 201 remains intact, meaning State laws still absolutely require the formal assent of the Governor or the President to come into force. The Governor's discretionary power to reserve specific bills for the President's consideration—especially those that might derogate the powers of the High Court—remains fully protected and non-justiciable on its merits.

Prelims Angle

NCERT Connection

This directly connects to Class 11 Political Science ('Indian Constitution at Work'), Chapter 6 - 'Judiciary'. The chapter explains the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143, noting that the President can seek the Court's opinion on a question of law or public importance. This 2025 event is a real-world application of how Advisory Jurisdiction is utilized to resolve a severe constitutional deadlock between the Union/Governors and States, effectively correcting a previous two-judge bench ruling without technically 'overruling' it in an adversarial suit.

Common Misconceptions

✗ The Supreme Court is constitutionally bound to give its opinion whenever the President makes a reference under Article 143.

✓ Under Article 143(1), the Supreme Court has the discretion to decline to tender its opinion (as it did in the 1993 Ram Janmabhoomi reference). It is only bound to give an opinion on pre-constitutional treaties under Article 143(2).

Students often fail to distinguish between the discretionary nature of Article 143(1) for matters of public importance and the mandatory nature of Article 143(2).

✗ A State Governor can exercise a 'pocket veto' by simply refusing to sign or return a Bill indefinitely.

✓ The Supreme Court ruled that Article 200 does not permit a standalone power to withhold assent silently. Withholding must be accompanied by returning the Bill with comments for reconsideration.

People confuse the President's 'pocket veto' power at the Union level with the Governor's powers. Article 200 explicitly includes a proviso that non-Money Bills must be returned 'as soon as possible'.

Practice Questions

Q1

How Many Correct

Consider the following statements regarding the 16th Presidential Reference and the powers of the Governor/President: 1. The Supreme Court is constitutionally bound to tender its advisory opinion whenever requested by the President under Article 143(1). 2. The Constitution Bench upheld the use of Article 142 to declare 'deemed assent' as a valid remedy against a Governor's prolonged inaction. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that while the merits of a Governor's decision on a Bill cannot be reviewed, prolonged and unexplained inaction is subject to limited judicial review. How many of the above statements are correct?

Q2

Match the Following

Match the Constitutional Provisions in List I with their correct description in List II: List I A. Article 143(1) B. Article 143(2) C. Article 200 D. Article 201 List II 1. President's power to declare assent or withhold assent to reserved State Bills. 2. Governor's constitutional options upon receiving a Bill passed by the State Legislature. 3. Supreme Court's discretionary advisory jurisdiction on questions of law or fact of public importance. 4. Supreme Court's mandatory advisory jurisdiction concerning pre-Constitution treaties.

Q3

Assertion & Reason

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court struck down the imposition of strict judicial timelines (like a three-month limit) for a Governor to decide on a State Bill under Article 200. Reason (R): Setting rigid judicial deadlines for constitutional authorities like the Governor and the President violates the doctrine of Separation of Powers.

← Back to Day 7 overview