Governor’s Assent to State Bills After the 2025 Presidential Reference

The constitutional process does not end when a State Legislature passes a Bill. Articles 200 and 201 allocate responsibilities to the Governor and, where a Bill is reserved, to the President. The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion in In re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, 2025 INSC 1333, delivered on 20 November 2025, clarified the limits of judicial intervention in that process.

Constitutional framework

Article 200 permits a Governor to assent, withhold assent, reserve a Bill for the President, or return a non-Money Bill for reconsideration. If the Legislature passes a returned Bill again, the constitutional text governs the next step. Article 201 addresses a Bill reserved for presidential consideration. Article 143 permits the President to refer qualifying questions of law or fact to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion.

The reference followed institutional disagreement about delay in dealing with State Bills. The central questions included whether courts may prescribe fixed timelines, create “deemed assent,” or require the President to seek judicial advice whenever a Bill is reserved.

What the Court clarified

The Constitution Bench advised that Articles 200 and 201 do not contain fixed decision periods that courts can convert into mandatory constitutional deadlines. It rejected deemed assent as a judicially created substitute for an actual constitutional decision. Article 142 cannot be used to replace the Governor or President in a function assigned to those offices.

That conclusion does not place indefinite inaction beyond scrutiny. Prolonged, unexplained and indefinite failure to act may attract limited judicial review. A court may require the constitutional authority to discharge the function, while avoiding an order that dictates the substantive choice or manufactures assent.

The Court also clarified that the President is not required to invoke Article 143 for every reserved Bill. The advisory jurisdiction is constitutionally available, but it is not an automatic additional stage in the Article 201 process.

Separation of powers and federalism

The opinion treats assent as part of a distributed constitutional arrangement. State legislation, gubernatorial responsibility, presidential consideration and judicial review occupy connected but distinct domains. Judicial review preserves constitutional accountability; it does not transfer the underlying decision to the court.

The federal consequence is significant. Delay can frustrate an elected State Legislature, but an inflexible judicial timetable may also add words to provisions that do not contain them. The 2025 opinion attempts to preserve review of institutional paralysis without rewriting the assent clauses.

Practical implications

Any challenge should identify the Bill, presentation date, later communications, whether it was returned or reserved, and the duration and explanation for inaction. Relief should be framed around performance of the constitutional function rather than a judicial declaration that assent has occurred.

The advisory opinion must be read with the exact procedural history of later disputes. It does not validate every delay, resolve the constitutionality of the underlying Bill, or prevent review of an eventual decision on grounds recognised by constitutional law.

Conclusion

The 2025 opinion rejects both constitutional immunity for indefinite silence and judicial replacement of the assent authority. Accountability remains available, but the remedy must respect the constitutional allocation of functions.

Sources

Supreme Court of India: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/39157/39157_2025_1_1501_66169_Judgement_20-Nov-2025.pdf

Constitution of India, Articles 143, 200 and 201: https://legislative.gov.in/documents/page/4

#ConstitutionalLaw #Federalism #SupremeCourt