INTRODUCTION
Recently, the Supreme Court of India stated its decision in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu.[1] on 8 April 2025. This decision essentially stated that there should be a time limit for both the Governor and the President to give assent to the bills passed by the State Government. It was made clear in the decision that the President, as well as the Governor, cannot just sit on the bills indefinitely. Exercising the power outlined in Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution[2], President Draupadi Murmu had presented 14 questions to the Supreme Court.
This judgment raises questions, such as: Can the Supreme Court set a timeline for the President? Can the President be called upon to give reasons for withholding assent? Can the Supreme Court direct the President to give assent to bills?
This blog examines the course of events that led the President to exercise a rare constitutional provision, seeking the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on 14 questions..
BACKGROUND
Between January and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu government passed 12 new bills, primarily concerning the appointment of Vice-Chancellors at state universities, and sent them to the Governor. Under Article 200[3], the Governor initially opted for inaction, employing a “pocket veto” by neither approving nor rejecting the legislation. This prolonged delay in passing the bills led the Tamil Nadu government to take the matter to the Supreme Court, highlighting the lack of action by the Governor. Later, the Governor decided to send two of these bills for the President’s review and withheld assent for the remaining ten. In response, the State Assembly reenacted these bills and resent them to the Governor, who then again reserved them for presidential consideration. Ultimately, the President approved one bill, rejected seven, and took no action on the last two.[4]
SC RULING IN 8TH APRIL JUDGEMENT
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor has specific choices when presented with a bill from the state legislature: they can approve it, reject it, or send it to the President for consideration. [5] The Supreme Court, in a ruling related to the Punjab Governor’s case, made it clear that a Governor cannot simply ignore a bill indefinitely, a tactic sometimes called a “pocket veto.” The Court emphasised that the Constitution doesn’t allow for such an absolute or pocket veto. [6]
Furthermore, Article 200 states that if a Governor decides to withhold approval for a bill, they must return it to the State Assembly for reconsideration. In the case of State Government of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, a key argument from the central government’s side was that since the Governor hadn’t sent the bills back to the Assembly after withholding assent, the Assembly shouldn’t have re-passed them. However, the Court dismissed this argument, finding it inconsistent with the procedure laid out in Article 200. The Court also clarified that a Governor can only send a bill to the President for consideration the first time it’s presented. They cannot do so for a bill that the State Assembly has re-passed and sent back to them.
The Supreme Court noted that the Governor’s action of holding back bills for the President’s review on November 28, 2023, after the State Legislature had already reconsidered them, went against the process in Article 200. Consequently, the Supreme Court declared the Governor’s action to reserve these 10 bills as “invalid.” Any subsequent actions taken by the President regarding these specific bills are also considered equally “invalid.” Due to the significant time the Governor had taken, the Supreme Court, using its special powers under Article 142[7], ruled that these 10 bills were effectively considered as having received approval.
THIS JUDGEMENT ESTABLISHED CLEAR TIMELINES FOR THE GOVERNORS:
- Governor’s Decision (with Ministerial Advice): If the Governor decides to withhold assent or send a bill to the President based on the advice of the State Council of Ministers, they must do so within one month.
- Governor’s Decision (against Ministerial Advice): If the Governor withholds assent or sends a bill to the President against the advice of the State Council of Ministers, they have three months to act.
- Approval of Re-passed Bills: If the State Assembly re-passes a bill and sends it back, the Governor must grant assent within one month.
ADDITIONALLY, THE SUPREME COURT ALSO SET A TIMELINE FOR THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS ON BILLS:
- The President must decide on a bill within three months. Any delay beyond this period must be justified and communicated to the respective state.
- If the President fails to act within these three months, the state government can petition the Supreme Court and request a directive (a writ of mandamus) from the Court to compel a decision. [8] [9]
QUESTIONS POSED BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
Upon receiving an official copy of the 8th April judgment, the President invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution[10], a provision that permits the President to request the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on legal or factual issues of significant public importance. The Supreme Court, after due deliberation, can then give its opinion to the President.
IN THE LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT, PRESIDENT DRAUPADI MURMU RAISED SEVERAL KEY POINTS:
- She noted that Article 200 of the Constitution does not specify a time limit within which either the Governor or the President must decide on bills passed by state legislatures.
- The President further argued that the concept of “deemed assent”, where a bill is considered approved due to inaction, is unfamiliar to India’s constitutional framework and effectively limits the powers of both the President and Governors. [11]
JUDICIAL OUTREACH VS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
The conflict between the President and the Judiciary raises concerns about the scope within which the Supreme Court can use Article 142, which grants it extraordinary power to deliver complete justice.[12] Some argue that this encroaches on presidential powers and undermines the separation of powers. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar called this case a “Judicial overreach.” [13] On the other hand, judicial intervention can be seen as a necessary check on executive and political interference. By acting to prevent the Governor’s prolonged inaction on passing bills, the Judiciary is protecting the democratic process and ensuring that governance is not driven by political considerations. This perspective views the Judiciary’s action as a vital component of India’s constitutional framework.
CONCLUSION
The fate of Article 143 now hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court prepares to hear a presidential reference that could redefine the boundaries of its adjudicatory jurisdiction. With the advocate for Kerala arguing that the reference is a disguised appeal beyond the scope of Article 143, and the Union Government contending that it involves a constitutional matter related to the doctrine of separation of powers, the outcome will have far-reaching implications. [14]
Ultimately, the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on the presidential reference is a pivotal moment for India’s constitutional framework. As the court prepares to address the complex arguments surrounding its advisory jurisdiction and the separation of powers, its decision will not only set a significant precedent for the future use of Article 143 but will also redefine the dynamic between the executive and the judiciary.
The most constructive path forward for the Supreme Court is to use this opportunity to provide a clear and definitive guide on the constitutional principles at stake. [15] By clarifying the boundaries of the President’s and Governors’ powers under Articles 200 and 201 without overturning its prior rulings, the court can offer valuable guidance to all government institutions, thereby settling the constitutional debate and marking a new chapter in India’s governance without getting entangled in a political dispute.
Author(s) Name: Tejal Narwade (ILS Law College, Pune)
References:
[1] The Indian Express ‘FOR THE RECORD: The 14 questions President Murmu has asked SC’ (The Indian Express, 15 May 2025) <https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/14-questions-president-murmu-asked-supreme-court-10008583/> accessed 18 June 2025
[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 143(1)
[3] Constitution of India 1950, art 200
[4] The Hindu ‘What are the 10 Bills of Tamil Nadu withheld by Governor R.N. Ravi, now considered assented to after Supreme Court verdict?’ (The Hindu,13 April 2025) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/what-are-the-10-bills-of-tamil-nadu-withheld-by-governor-now-considered-assented-to-after-supreme-court-verdict/article69426419.ece> accessed 18 June 2025
[5] FOR THE RECORD: The 14 questions President Murmu has asked SC (n 1)
[6] Gursimran Kaur Bakshi, ‘Supreme Court Sets Aside TN Governor’s Decision To Reserve 10 Bills For President’s Assent; Says He Acted Without Bona Fides’ (Livelaw, 8 April 2025) < https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-sets-aside-tn-governors-reservation-of-10-bills-for-president-says-governor-acted-without-bona-fides-288744> accessed 18 June 2025
[7] Constitution of India 1950, art 142
[8] Drishti IAS ‘SC Sets a Deadline for Presidential Decision on Reserved Bills’ (Drishti IAS, 14 April 2025) <https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/sc-sets-a-deadline-for-presidential-decision-on-reserved-bills> accessed 18 June 2025
[9] The State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) INSC 481
[10] Constitution of India 1950, art 143(1)
[11] ‘FOR THE RECORD: The 14 questions President Murmu has asked SC’ (n 1)
[12] Constitution of India 1950, art 142
[13] India Today ‘Parliament is supreme: Jagdeep Dhankhar doubles down on criticism of judiciary’ (India Today, 22 April 2025) <https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/parliament-is-supreme-jagdeep-dhankhar-again-condemns-judiciary-supreme-court-encroachment-2712698-2025-04-22> accessed 18 June 2025
[14] Parmod Kumar ‘SC fixes Presidential reference hearing from August 19 to first hear Tamil Nadu and Kerala on maintainability’ (The Leaflet, 30 July 2025) <https://theleaflet.in/leaflet-reports/sc-fixes-presidential-reference-hearing-from-august-19-to-first-hear-tamil-nadu-and-kerala-on-maintainability> accessed 5 August 2025
[15] Vajiram and Ravi, ‘Presidential Reference: Can the Supreme Court Clarify Past Rulings?’, (Vajiram & Ravi, 24 July 2025) https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/presidential-reference-can-the-supreme-court-clarify-past-rulings/ accessed 5 August 2025.
