Governor’s Assent Demystified: Supreme Court Answers 14 Presidential Questions

The Supreme Court explained the constitutional limitations concerning the authority of Governors in endorsing a Bill on the basis of Article 143 of the Constitution, as it interprets the power of Governors over a Presidential Reference. The Court answered fourteen questions, declaring it impossible that Governors may permanently withhold assent, and that their discretionary possibilities would remain within the limits of three constitutional variants, which are grant, reserve for the President, or return to the legislature, and that any deviation from this would be subject to the principle of constitutional morality. Although the Court rejected the use of absolute procedural schedules, it believed that a prolonged inaction is an unconstitutional invasion.

The recent Supreme Court’s clarification about the Presidential Reference that challenges the authority of Governors is a pioneering move in the Indian constitutional law. President Droupadi Murmu, who drafted the Reference, which had been made under Article 143, put before the court fourteen legal inquiries of fact to aid in ascertaining the extent and boundaries of the discretion of governors when consenting to statutes passed by state legislatures. This question arose due to the deliberate issues of disagreements amongst governors and elected governments over when to agree and when to refuse, and thus caused fears about how those powers were balanced in the system of federal governance in India. A 5-judge bench issued a clarification that emphasizes that governors cannot permanently withhold assent and use their discretion in such a way that defeats the will of the legislature. The Court outlined that the governors had only three constitutionally authorized choices, which were either granting assent, reserving the Bill on behalf of the President, or returning it for the reconsideration. Moreover, the Court discarded the idea of the so-called deemed assent and refused to use rigid procedural deadlines; the Court emphasized the fact that a long period of stagnation is a breach of constitutional morality.

In addition to the immediate response, this decision provides a broader structure that is aimed at strengthening cooperative federalism, the responsiveness of constitutional powers, and preserving the democratic process in India.In a November 2025 advisory opinion, the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope of a Governor's power regarding the assent of bills, but refused to impose specific timelines on Governors or the President. The court's ruling was in response to a Presidential Reference under Article 143, following a contentious April 2025 verdict in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu

Background & Constitutional History

The clarification by the Supreme Court in the Presidential Reference on the authority of Governors forms a historic point in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It clears up uncertainties in Articles 200 and 201, thus strengthening ideas of accountability and cooperative federalism.The Supreme Court, in a recent advisory opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution, answered President Murmu's 14 questions on Governor's assent by ruling that courts cannot impose fixed timelines for governors to act on bills, nor can they automatically grant "deemed assent".

Historical Background of the Governor's Position
The framers of the Constitution had an ideal of the office of the Governor as a linkage between the Union and individual States, combining both the solemn dignity and the constitutional duty. Article 200 states that Governors have the power to either sanction Bills passed by State legislatures, withhold that power from the President, or return it. However, the lack of clear time-limited instructions and the possibility of prolonged actionlessness have led to the emergence of the problem of tensions in the Centre-State relations.

Invocation of Constitutional Ambiguity
Throughout a history of decades, the Governors in other States have declined assent to Bills for prolonged periods, and have cast the interrogative whether discretion could be exercised indefinitely. This has often been criticized as biased and has weakened the independence of legislation. In turn, the ambiguity of the concept of the denial of consent and the absence of timelines that could be legally granted by the court predetermined the constitutional clarification.

Article 143 Presidential Reference
President Droupadi Murmu realised the seriousness of the matter, so she used Article 143 to seek the advice of the Supreme Court on fourteen questions. This is a constitutional allowance that seldom occurs; hence, the President can seek the court's opinion on issues of national concern. The issues, which the questions tackled, included the possibility of considering indefinitely the delay of assent by Governors, the possibility of the recognition of the so-called de facto assent, and the range within which the judicial review can limit the discretion of Governors.

Constitutional Clarification of the Supreme Court
It was clarifiedby a five-judge Constitution Bench that the Governor has no right to merely withhold assent simpliciter, since this would serve to frustrate the intention of the legislature and would be against constitutional morality. The Court stressed the fact that Governors had three valid choices only, namely, granting assent to the Bill, referring it to the President, or returning it for reconsideration. Although avoiding strict judicial timeframes, the Court proclaimed that the inability to act without any procrastination is unconstitutional behaviour. This explanation supports the theory of cooperative federalism and reaffirms the supremacy of the democratic processes.

The key clarifications of the Supreme Court

The constitutional clarity needed in the governors' powers is given by the Supreme Court in the Presidential Reference on the powers of the governors. It also defines the scope of gubernatorial discretion, which is admissible, hence providing accountability and strengthening democracy within the Indian federal system.In an advisory opinion, the Supreme Court of India answered 11 of 14 questions from President Murmu regarding the powers of Governors and the President in assenting to state bills, clarifying aspects of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

Explanation of Assent Alternatives
The Court made it clear that governors should not have such discretion at their disposal to refuse assent simpliciter. Article 200, on the contrary, gives only three legally valid alternatives: giving assent to the bill, reserving the bill for the President, or sending the bill back to the legislature. This explanation does away with the chances of endless inhibition and validates the supremacy of the legislative will.

Denial of Indefinite Delay
One of the most notable clarifications was made when the Court excluded the issue of the inaction of the governor for some time. Although the judicial system did not provide specific time frames, it made it clear that intentional or unreasonable procrastination is an unconstitutional behaviour. Such a principle will prevent frustrative evasive inaction and secure constitutional morality and democratic responsibility of the governors.

Position on “Deemed Assent”
Another concept that the Court dealt with was that of deemed assent, rejection of the fact that it was possible to have bills become law automatically after a defined period without action of the governor. Although the Court maintained the formal position of the governor, it emphasized that constitutional powers should be carried out in reasonable time periods, such that the integrity of the process and efficiency in the legislation are measured.

Scope of Judicial Review
The other important clarification was relating to the judiciary review of gubernatorial discretion. The Court upheld that whereas governors have constitutional power to exercise it, such should be questioned by the Court in case they do so in bad faith or against constitutional values. This position makes sure that the powers of governors are not absolute at all, but they are anchored to constitutional morality and democratic responsibility.

Implications on the Federalism
By explaining these problems, the Court upheld the doctrine of cooperative federalism. This makes governors act more as constitutional actors and not as political actors, enhancing the independence of state legislatures while maintaining union control. The decision, therefore, reinvents the role of the governor as a constitutional balance but not an exercise of partisanship.

Responses to 14 Questions

In the Presidential Reference, the advisory opinion issued by the Supreme Court covered 14 questions with reference to the constitutional powers of the Governor. All the answers demystified Articles 200 and 201, hence enhancing democratic responsibility and cooperative federalism.In a November 2025 advisory opinion on a presidential reference, the Supreme Court of India clarified the constitutional powers of governors and the president regarding assent to state bills.

Elucidation on Assent Powers
The Court decided that Governors cannot merely withhold assent simpliciter. This implies that the rejection must not be impractical. Governors have to decide using the following three options: Assent, referring the Bill to the President, or returning it. This explanation makes sure that the law-making procedures are not hampered by some arbitrary gubernatorial discretion.

Juristic History and Piety
Among the questions was the fact whether the courts were capable of coming up with stringent deadlines within which Governors would have to take action. The Court did not specify fixed timeframes, but constitutional authorities were required to have a fair degree of prominence. Nevertheless, it highlighted that long-term or planned non-action is unconstitutional and discriminatory against the democratic ruling.

Rejection of "Deemed Assent"
The Court did not accept the concept involving the so-called deemed assent, which would have permitted Bills to automatically become law after some period of time. This does not actually impact the Governor as a formal office, but the Court emphasized that the balance between the responsibility of the constitutional functions and the indefinite delay challenges them, keeping the integrity and efficiency of the procedures balanced.

Scope of Judicial Review
The other question involved the issue of whether gubernatorial discretion is immune to judicial review. The Court made it clear that Governors are also given constitutional power, but their exercise is still subject to judicial restraint under the stipulation that they should act in bad faith or against the constitutional principles. This involves holding to account and guarding against the abuse of discretionary powers.

Implications & Way Forward

The clarification by the Supreme Court in the Presidential Reference on the powers of Governors has some far-reaching implications on the constitutional frameworks of India. It alters the parameters of discretion of gubernatorial power and enhances democracy within the federation system.

Enhancement of Cooperative Federalism
The decision enhances the principle of cooperative federalism, which requires Governors to be constitutional guardians as opposed to being political players.

• The judgment strengthens the independence of the State legislatures, and at the same time, maintains the requisite Union control through restraint of the discretion of the legislatures. 
• Such a balance is needed to maintain the cordial relationship between the Centre and the States in the pluralistic democratic system in India.

Strengthening Sovereignty
The clarification confirms that Governors cannot withhold consent indefinitely, hence reinstating the sovereignty of elected legislatures.

• This way, the will of voters, as represented by their deputies, is not obstructed by the uncertainties of the cabinet. 
• The decision, therefore, unites the political procedures and prevents the whimsical postponements of legislative will.

Judicial Check &Balance and Constitutional Morality
The fact that the Court focused on moral principles of cognition in the Constitution and the questions of the viability of judicial examination of the actions of Governors predetermines a new aspect of accountability.

• Denying the sheer arbitrariness of inflexible schedules, the Court said that any protracted non-action is a constitutional infringement. 
• This principle was created to ensure that Governors follow their constitutional duties and make them accountable whenever their actions cause a threat to democratic rule.

Way Forward

• The verdict provides a fertile platform upon which reforms can be established to routinize the prominence of gubernatorial action using clear guidelines and conventions. 
• Specialized training and orientation programmes of Governors could preempt their position as neutral constitutional agents. 
• Moreover, greater openness of the relations between the State legislature and Raj Bhavans will strengthen the confidence of the people.

Democratic Implications

• Besides the present problem of assent, the decision realigns the role of the Governor as a holder of democracy and not a political judge. 
• The Court has reduced the abuse of discretion, thus establishing the foundation of a more responsive and participatory format of governance and strengthening the constitutional spirit of India.

Conclusion

The clarifications issued by the Supreme Court in the Presidential Reference on the powers of Governors form a precedent in the interpretation of the Constitution. The Court injected restraint in the discretion of gubernatorial power by answering fourteen specific legal inquiries, strengthening the sovereignty of the legislature, as well as reiterating the necessity of constitutional morality. The decision categorically underwrites an absolute delay and unreasonable withholding of assent, and as a consequence, endorses cooperative federalism and renders constitutional roles of function accountable. This way, the Court has provided a rational guideline on which to strike a balance between Union control and State autonomy and therefore prevent the obstruction of the democratic processes and revive the original spirit of the Indian constitutional order.