Presidential Reference on Governor's Powers

In 2025, the President of India invoked Article 143 to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on the scope of a Governor's powers to withhold assent to State Bills, specifically those passed by opposition-led legislatures. The reference was triggered by constitutional deadlocks in several states where Governors indefinitely sat on bills, effectively paralyzing legislative agendas. The Court examined whether absolute discretion violates the constitutional scheme, the reasonable time limit for granting or refusing assent, and whether a Governor's inaction is justiciable, aiming to clarify the fiduciary nature of the gubernatorial office.

The Supreme Court clarified that a Governor's power to withhold assent is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. It ruled that indefinite inaction constitutes a failure to exercise constitutional duty, mandating Governors to either grant assent, return the bill with a message, or reserve it for the President within a reasonable, defined timeframe.

The central dispute focused on whether a Governor possesses an absolute, non-reviewable veto power by indefinitely withholding assent to bills passed by a state legislature, or if such action is limited by constitutional obligations, a duty to act within a reasonable time, and the principles of representative democracy.

The advisory opinion reinforced the delicate balance between the union and states, curtailing potential misuse of gubernatorial office for political deadlock. It was hailed as a landmark ruling protecting legislative supremacy in state subjects and ensuring that unelected Governors cannot permanently block the will of the people expressed through elected legislatures.