Legal Review and Analysis of In Re Assent Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India 2025 INSC 1333

In-Short

Case: In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India Citation: 2025 INSC 1333

A landmark Advisory Jurisdiction verdict establishing that Governors have independent discretion (unbound by Ministerial advice) to reserve or return Bills and cannot simply "sit" on them indefinitely, while simultaneously ruling that Courts cannot prescribe rigid timelines or invoke "deemed assent" for legislative Bills.

1. Case Name and Citation

IN RE: ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 INSC 1333 Jurisdiction: Advisory Jurisdiction (Special Reference No. 1 of 2025)

2. Related Laws and Constitutional Provisions

This judgment primarily interprets and clarifies the following Articles of the Constitution of India:

• Article 200: Powers of the Governor regarding Assent to Bills, Withholding Assent, or Reservation for the President.

• Article 201: Powers of the President regarding Assent to Bills reserved for consideration.

• Article 143: Advisory Jurisdiction (Power of the President to consult the Supreme Court).

• Article 163: Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Governor.

• Article 361: Protection/Immunity of President and Governors.

• Article 142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court

Basic Judgment Details

• Date of Judgment: November 20, 2025.

• Bench Strength: Constitution Bench (5 Judges).

• Judges: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.

• Petitioner/Referral Authority: The President of India (Smt. Droupadi Murmu).

• Context: The Reference was made due to conflicting judgments, specifically doubts arising from the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), regarding the Governor's powers, the binding nature of the Council of Ministers' advice, and the imposition of timelines by Courts.

4. Constitutional Analysis and Judicial Interpretation

The Core Constitutional Issues

The central issue addressed by the Supreme Court is the "functional" relationship between the Governor, the State Legislature, and the President regarding the law-making process. The Reference sought to clarify if the Governor acts on his own discretion or the advice of Ministers when handling Bills, whether Courts can set time limits for these actions, and if the Judiciary can intervene in pending legislative processes.

A. Options of the Governor under Article 200 (The "What")

The Court interpreted Article 200 to determine the specific options available to a Governor when a Bill is presented. The Court ruled that the Governor has three distinct options:

1. Grant Assent.

2. Reserve the Bill for the President's consideration.

3. Withhold Assent and Return the Bill to the Legislature (unless it is a Money Bill).

Crucially, the Court held that the Governor does not have the power to "withhold assent simpliciter" (i.e., simply reject a Bill without returning it). The proviso to Article 200 qualifies the power to withhold; if the Governor withholds assent, he acts as part of a dialogic process and must return the Bill with a message. If the Legislature passes it again, the Governor must assent (he cannot withhold again), but he still retains the option to reserve it for the President.

B. Discretion vs. Aid and Advice (The "How")

A significant portion of the judgment analyzed whether the Governor is bound by the "aid and advice" of the Council of Ministers under Article 163 when dealing with Bills. The Court ruled that the Governor enjoys discretion under Article 200 and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

The reasoning provided is that the Governor has a duty to protect the Constitution and the federal scheme. If the Governor were bound by the Ministers' advice, they would never advise him to return their own Bill or reserve it for the President, rendering those constitutional provisions nugatory. The Constitution specifically requires the Governor to reserve Bills that derogate from High Court powers or conflict with Central laws, which requires independent discretion.

C. Rejection of Judicially Prescribed Timelines and "Deemed Assent"

The Court firmly rejected the principle laid down in the earlier State of Tamil Nadu judgment which had prescribed specific timelines (e.g., one month, three months) for the Governor to act. The Constitution Bench held that Article 200 and 201 do not contain specific time limits by design, to allow elasticity for constitutional functionaries.

Consequently, the Court ruled that:

1. No Timelines: It is inappropriate for the Court to judicially prescribe rigid timelines for the Governor or President.

2. No Deemed Assent: The concept of "deemed assent" (treating a Bill as passed if the Governor delays) is alien to the Constitution. The Court cannot use Article 142 to substitute the Governor's role and declare a Bill as law.

D. Justiciability and Immunity

The judgment clarified the extent to which Courts can interfere:

• Non-Justiciable Merits: The actual decision of the Governor or President to assent, withhold, or reserve a Bill is not justiciable. Courts cannot conduct a "merit review" of why a Bill was reserved or returned.

• Limited Judicial Review for Inaction: While the merits are not reviewable, prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction by a Governor is subject to limited judicial review. In such glaring cases, the Court can issue a "limited mandamus" directing the Governor to take some decision (without specifying which decision) within a reasonable time.

• Article 361 Immunity: While Article 361 provides absolute personal immunity to the Governor from being answerable to Courts, it does not bar the Court from issuing directions to the constitutional office of the Governor to prevent the frustration of the legislative process through inaction.

5. Final Outcome of the Judgment

The Constitution Bench answered the Presidential Reference with the following conclusions:

1. Governor's Options: The Governor has three options: Assent, Reserve for President, or Withhold and Return. There is no option to withhold assent simpliciter.

2. Discretion: The Governor exercises these options using constitutional discretion and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

3. Justiciability: The discharge of functions under Article 200 is not justiciable on merits. However, Courts can intervene in cases of prolonged, unexplained inaction by issuing a limited direction to act.

4. Immunity: Article 361 gives personal immunity but does not negate the Court's power to review prolonged inaction by the office of the Governor.

5. Timelines: The Court cannot prescribe rigid timelines for the Governor or President.

6. President's Role: The President's assent under Article 201 is not justiciable, and the President is not bound by timelines.

7. No Deemed Assent: The Constitution does not permit "deemed assent," and Article 142 cannot be used to create it.

8. Review of Pending Bills: Courts cannot adjudicate the contents of a Bill before it becomes law (assented to and notified).

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: According to the judgment In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills, which of the following statements accurately describes the Governor's power regarding "withholding assent" under Article 200?

A. The Governor can withhold assent and reject the Bill completely without giving any reason.

B. The Governor can withhold assent only on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

C. The Governor cannot withhold assent simpliciter; the option to withhold is qualified by the proviso requiring the Bill to be returned to the Legislature with a message.

D. The Governor can withhold assent only if the High Court’s powers are endangered.

Question 2: What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the imposition of specific time limits on the Governor for exercising functions under Article 200?

A. The Governor must act within six weeks as per the Constituent Assembly Debates.

B. In the absence of constitutional time limits, it is inappropriate for the Court to judicially prescribe rigid timelines, though prolonged inaction is subject to limited review.

C. The Governor must act within the same timeline prescribed for the Legislature (six months) under Article 201

D. Failure to act within three months results in "deemed assent" under Article 142.