In a packed courtroom that felt unusually tense for a constitutional reference, the Supreme Court on Wednesday began examining a rare and weighty Presidential Reference dealing with the powers of Governors and the President in granting or withholding assent to state Bills. The matter, formally titled In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, marks only the 16th advisory opinion sought under Article 143. The hearing saw senior lawyers, Solicitor General, and multiple States presenting arguments that often overlapped, occasionally clashed, but consistently underscored the urgency of the issue.
Background
The reference was triggered after months of friction between several State governments and Raj Bhavans over Bills allegedly kept pending without explanation. The President, acting under Article 143(1), formally asked the Court to clarify the constitutional limits of gubernatorial actions-especially whether a Governor can indefinitely delay assent, return Bills repeatedly, or exercise discretion independent of the elected government’s advice.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clarifies When Appeal Time Starts in Environmental Clearance Cases, Dismisses Talli Gram
Interestingly, many States argued that the reference was unnecessary because a two-judge Bench had already addressed these concerns in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025). But others countered that the earlier judgment created “more confusion than clarity”, making an authoritative opinion from a larger Bench indispensable. The Court itself hinted that the “functional nature” of the issues made it impossible to brush them aside.
Court’s Observations
Early in the hearing, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud noted-almost conversationally-that this reference was “fundamentally different from earlier Article 143 matters” because it deals with the everyday working of India’s federal structure. The Bench stressed that constitutional machinery cannot run “in a fog”, and if confusion exists about how Governors should act on Bills, “the Court must iron out those constitutional creases.”
Read also:- Supreme Court Clarifies: Assignment of Specific Performance Decrees Need No Registration, Ending
Several judges questioned the preliminary objections raised by some States. One judge remarked, “If the highest constitutional functionary expresses doubt, we cannot simply say ‘Everything is already settled’ and decline to answer.”
The Bench also unpacked a crucial textual issue:
- Does Article 200 give Governors four options (assent, withhold, return, reserve)?
- Or are there only three, because “withhold” is qualified by the proviso that requires returning the Bill for reconsideration?
The Court seemed inclined toward the latter view, observing: “The structure of Article 200 does not support a bare, independent power to withhold assent without returning the Bill.”
Another judge noted wryly that if Governors could simply withhold assent on a Money Bill-without the possibility of sending it back-“the entire financial machinery of a State could be held hostage.”
The Bench also indicated that previous judgments such as Kameshwar Singh, Valluri, and Hoechst were cited out of context in earlier cases because none of them directly analysed what exactly the Governor may do when a Bill is placed before him.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Refuses State’s Appeal After Acquittal in POCSO Case, Says DNA Alone Cannot Establish Rape Without Clear Victim Testimony
Decision (Till This Stage of the Order)
As of the section provided in the order, the Court has not yet delivered its final opinion, but it has decisively rejected the preliminary objections questioning the maintainability of the Presidential Reference. The Bench confirmed that:
- The questions are of “immense constitutional significance”.
- The reference is valid and maintainable.
- The Court will proceed to answer the substantive questions on the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201.
The order makes it clear that the Supreme Court views the matter not as a political contest but as a constitutional necessity, one that directly affects federal functioning and the democratic process. The detailed opinion on the Governor’s exact options, the binding nature of ministerial advice, and the issue of timelines will follow in subsequent sections of the judgment.
Case Title In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India (Presidential Reference No. 1 of 2025)
Type of Case: Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) seeking Supreme Court’s advisory opinion.
