Current development ·
Supreme Court opinion on Governors' and President's assent
In the 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143, a five-judge bench held that courts cannot fix timelines for assent to State Bills and that 'deemed assent' has no place in the Constitution.
What changed
On 20 November 2025 a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai answered the President's reference under Article 143. The reference followed the April 2025 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, which had set timelines and treated long-pending Bills as having received assent.
The Court opined that courts cannot impose timelines on the Governor or the President for decisions under Articles 200 and 201, and that deemed assent is alien to the constitutional scheme. It also held that a Governor cannot simply withhold assent indefinitely without returning the Bill to the legislature.
Foundation connections
Read federal issues and challenges for Centre–State friction over the Governor's office, and checks and balances for the limits of judicial direction to constitutional authorities.
Exam use and limits
- Prelims: Article 143 gives an advisory opinion, not a binding judgment on a dispute; Articles 200 and 201 list the Governor's and President's options on Bills.
- Mains: Weigh legislative supremacy of States, the Governor's discretion, and the role of courts when constitutional silence produces delay.
Source: All India Radio News (Prasar Bharati)