Supreme Court Examines Presidential and Gubernatorial Assent Powers: Can the Judiciary Step In?

August 26, 2025

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has raised a crucial constitutional question: Can the apex court remain powerless if the President or state governors indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by duly elected legislatures? The matter came up while examining President Droupadi Murmu’s Article 143 reference filed in May 2025, seeking clarity on the judiciary’s role in enforcing timelines for assent to legislation.

This debate strikes at the heart of India’s separation of powers and federal structure, questioning whether constitutional discretion vested in high offices should be judicially regulated when used to indefinitely stall governance.

Background: The Tamil Nadu Bills Case

This presidential reference stems from the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 judgment concerning Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged inaction over several state bills.

The Court invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, holding that the governor’s delay was “illegal” and against constitutional morality.
It also set a three-month timeline for the President to decide on bills referred by a governor and one month for governors to act on re-enacted bills.

The judgment was unprecedented, creating a judicially mandated framework where no explicit constitutional timeline exists, sparking a constitutional debate on the judiciary’s limits.

Constitutional Provisions in Focus

Article 143 – Presidential Reference

Article 143 empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on matters of law or constitutional importance. This reference seeks clarity on:Whether courts can impose timeframes for assent when the Constitution is silent.
Whether withholding assent indefinitely violates the basic structure doctrine by undermining democratic functioning.

2. Article 200 – Governor’s Assent

A Governor can:

Give assent to a bill.
Withhold assent.
Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration.
Return the bill for reconsideration.
The Constitution does not specify a timeline for exercising these powers.

3. Article 201 – Presidential Powers

If a bill is reserved for Presidential consideration, the President may:

Assent.
Withhold assent.
Direct reconsideration.
Again, no constitutional deadline exists.

4. Article 32 and Judicial Review

Article 32 allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. Petitioners argue that indefinite withholding of assent violates federalism and democracy, which form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Courtroom Debate

CJI Bhushan R. Gavai asked whether the judiciary should remain powerless if high offices indefinitely block governance:

“If the President sits on a bill for an indefinite period, will the Court be powerless?”
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul (Madhya Pradesh) argued that this discretion should remain untouched, as the Constitution intentionally grants autonomy to these positions.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve (Maharashtra) emphasized that withholding assent is not a personal veto but a constitutional safeguard, and judicial timelines could erode this delicate balance.
ASG Vikramjit Banerjee (Goa) and Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani (Chhattisgarh) opposed judicially created doctrines like “deemed assent,” calling them unconstitutional.
The Centre’s Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, clarified that assent issues do not apply to money bills, which already require prior gubernatorial recommendation.

The hearing now moves to those challenging the discretionary interpretation, with arguments expected to highlight misuse of gubernatorial powers.

Historical Precedent: The Punjab Bill Controversy (2023)

This debate echoes the Punjab Governor vs. State Government row (2023):

Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit withheld approval for seven bills passed by the Punjab Assembly, citing procedural lapses.
The matter escalated to the Supreme Court, which ruled that governors cannot indefinitely stall bills, stressing that “constitutional authorities must act in a time-bound manner.”
This judgment laid the groundwork for the current presidential reference, showcasing growing judicial scrutiny over executive inaction.

Constitutional Significance

This case is more than a legal tussle; it underscores:

The tension between constitutional discretion and democratic accountability.
Whether judicial intervention is necessary to prevent paralysis in state governance.
How India’s federal framework must evolve to balance autonomy with transparency.

Legal experts caution that unchecked discretion can lead to executive overreach, effectively turning constitutional safeguards into political tools.

Conclusion

As the Supreme Court examines this issue under Article 143, it may define a historic precedent on whether timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent should be judicially enforced. This decision will directly impact Centre-State relations and ensure that India’s constitutional democracy remains functional and fair.

The judgment could be a landmark in Indian constitutional law, cementing the principle that no authority, however high, can use constitutional silence to stall governance indefinitely.