Governor's Assent to Bills: Presidential Reference (2025)

Courts Cannot Fix Timelines or Deem Assent to Bills; Limited Mandamus Only for Governor's Prolonged Inaction: Supreme Court

Published: 21 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

Answering a Presidential Reference under Article 143, a five-Judge Constitution Bench held that a Governor has three options on a Bill: assent, reserve it for the President, or withhold assent and return it to the Legislature. He chooses among them in his discretion, and the choice is not justiciable. Courts cannot prescribe timelines or deem assent under Article 142, but may issue a limited mandamus where inaction is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite. Questions 12 and 14 were returned unanswered (para 165).

Key holdings

A Bill cannot be withheld simpliciter; withholding means returning it with comments (paras 97, 165).

The Governor is not bound by ministerial advice in choosing among the Article 200 options (para 165).

Courts cannot impose timelines on the Governor or the President (paras 114, 165).

Article 142 does not permit deemed assent of Bills (para 165).

The President need not seek the Court's opinion whenever a Bill is reserved (paras 152, 165).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

On 13 May 2025 the President referred fourteen questions under Article 143(1) on the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 (para 1). They arose after a two-Judge Bench decision of 08.04.2025 in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (para 11). The reference was placed before the Constitution Bench on 22.07.2025, and the hearing began on 19.08.2025, with the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and many States appearing (paras 2-4). The States opposing it called it an appeal in disguise against that decision and asked that it be returned unanswered (paras 5-6).

Court's Findings

The reference was maintainable, seeking clarity on the law, not reversal of the relief in State of Tamil Nadu (paras 26-28). The first proviso qualifies 'withholds', so a withheld Bill must be returned to the House; a Money Bill can only be assented to or reserved (paras 45, 48, 97). Article 200 confers discretion, as Nabam Rebia held, and the second proviso's words 'in the opinion of the Governor' confirm it (paras 73, 87). A Bill passed again may be reserved for the President (para 99). As Articles 200 and 201 set no time limit, the Governor's timelines in State of Tamil Nadu were erroneous and its remarks on the President's timelines obiter (paras 110, 114). Deemed assent under Article 142 would usurp another constitutional authority's role (paras 118, 128). State of Tamil Nadu was bound by Hoechst and other earlier decisions: functions under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable, and no court may examine a Bill before it becomes law (paras 137, 144, 148). Only prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction permits a limited direction to act within a reasonable time, without comment on the merits (paras 154, 158); Article 361 immunity does not bar it (para 164).

Legal Principle

Under Article 200 the Governor may assent, reserve the Bill for the President, or withhold assent and return it, in his discretion; that choice cannot be reviewed on merits, courts cannot fix timelines or deem assent, and only prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction invites a limited direction to decide within a reasonable time (paras 158, 165).

Precedents Relied Upon

State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu 2025 INSC 481; (2025) 8 SCC 1
Explained Discussed at ¶ 6, 26, 78, 88, 114, 126, 137
Without disturbing its relief, the opinion held erroneous its Governor timelines, deemed assent, justiciability regime and Samsher Singh reading ("cannot be relied upon as good law"); its Article 201 timeline remarks were obiter.
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1983 INSC 61; (1983) 4 SCC 45
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 38, 133, 137
The assent of the President is not justiciable.
Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Ors 2016 INSC 526; (2016) 8 SCC 1
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 68, 71, 73
Article 200 confers discretionary powers on the Governor.

View all precedents (6)

Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala 1961 INSC 331; 1961 SCC OnLine SC 361
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 104, 110
Articles 200 and 201 prescribe no time limit for the Governor or the President to decide on a Bill.
Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India 2006 INSC 42; (2006) 2 SCC 1
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 161, 163
Article 361 gives the Governor complete personal immunity but does not bar examining the validity of an action.
A.G. Perarivalan v. State of T.N. 2022 INSC 588; (2023) 8 SCC 257
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 123, 124
Decided under Article 161; it fixed no uniform timeline and deemed no pardon, so it cannot support timelines under Articles 200 and 201.

Statutory Provisions