Presidential Reference on Governor's Powers

In May 2025, the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, made a historic Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution. She sought the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on 14 questions regarding the limits of a Governor's and the President's power to grant or withhold assent to Bills passed by state legislatures under Articles 200 and 201. This reference came a month after the Supreme Court's judgment in *State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu*, which had set timelines for such decisions and deemed certain Bills as having received assent. A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, heard the case, with the Union and several states presenting arguments. The case concluded with the Court delivering its advisory opinion in November 2025.

On November 20, 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench delivered its advisory opinion. The Court ruled that a Governor has only three options under Article 200: grant assent, reserve the Bill for the President, or withhold assent and return it to the legislature with a request for reconsideration. Crucially, it stated that the Governor cannot simply "withhold" a Bill indefinitely, but must return it. However, the Court overturned the earlier ruling by stating that the judiciary cannot impose rigid timelines on these constitutional functionaries. It also held that the Court cannot use its powers under Article 142 to create a doctrine of "deemed assent." The opinion described the Governor's power as discretionary and stated that, while decisions are not justiciable, "prolonged, unexplained, indefinite inaction" may invite limited judicial scrutiny.

The central dispute was whether the April 2025 judgment in *State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu* was correct in its interpretation of the Governor's and President's powers, particularly regarding the imposition of timelines and the use of Article 142 to deem assent to Bills. Opponents, like Tamil Nadu, argued the Presidential Reference was an "appeal in disguise" seeking to overrule a binding judgment. The main constitutional questions were: 1) Whether a Governor can indefinitely withhold assent, effectively creating a 'pocket veto' that paralyzes state legislatures? 2) Whether the judiciary can prescribe timelines for constitutional authorities to act on Bills where the Constitution is silent? 3) What are the limits of gubernatorial discretion under Article 200, and are these actions subject to judicial review?

The advisory opinion has significant implications for India's federal structure. It has been criticized for potentially empowering Governors, who are appointed by the Union government, to act as a "de facto Union veto" over state legislation, thereby undermining state autonomy.[reference:19][reference:20] Legal commentators noted the "ambiguous" nature of the judgment, as it denies the court the power to enforce timelines while offering no clear remedy against a Governor who simply refuses to act, creating a risk of democratic paralysis.[reference:21] Despite this, the ruling is expected to serve as a constitutional guidepost for future conflicts between state governments and Governors.[reference:22] It also sparked wider public debate about the relevance of the Governor's office, with some political voices calling for its abolition.[reference:23]