Presidential reference on assent to bills

Also called: In re Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India · Topic: State Government: Governor, Chief Minister, State Legislature and Union Territories · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The Presidential reference on assent to bills (In re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, Special Reference No. 1 of 2025) is the Supreme Court's advisory opinion (non-binding legal advice given to the President under Article 143). In it, a five-judge bench ruled on 20 November 2025 that courts cannot set deadlines for Governors or the President to act on bills, and cannot declare "deemed assent". A court can still order a decision when inaction is "prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite" [1].

It matters because it overturned the main parts of the April 2025 Tamil Nadu judgment. That changes how states can fight a Governor who sits on their bills. It also raises the question of whether an advisory opinion can weaken a binding judgment.

Explanation

How the reference came about

• The trigger: in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (8 April 2025), a two-judge bench made three key moves [2]:
• It set fixed deadlines for Governors and the President.
• It held that the Governor has clear discretion only in the second proviso to Art. 200.

• It used Art. 142 (the Court's power to do "complete justice") to declare ten Tamil Nadu bills "deemed assented". This means they were treated as signed even though no one signed them.

• The reference: on 13 May 2025, the President sent 14 questions to the Supreme Court under Art. 143. This was the 16th Presidential reference [3].

• The states' objection: opposing states said the reference was an "appeal in disguise":
• The questions were already settled by a judgment that binds all courts under Art. 141.

• The Union was using the reference in place of a review or curative petition [1].

• The Court's reply:

• It relied on Natural Resources Allocation (2012). Overruling a judgment as a precedent (a rule for future cases) does not reopen its decree (the final order between the parties) [1].

• It called its advisory role "a constitutional dialogue between the Executive and the Judiciary" [1].

• Bench: CJI B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar. The citation is 2025 INSC 1333 [1].

What the Court decided (para 165)

On the Governor (Art. 200)

• Only three options (165.1): assent, reserve the bill for the President, or withhold assent and return it with comments.
• "Withhold and return" is not available for a money bill. A money bill is a bill only about taxes, borrowing or spending from state funds.

• The first proviso only limits these options. It is not a fourth option. So the Governor cannot withhold assent without returning the bill [1].

• Discretion (165.2): the Governor can choose among the three options using their own judgment. Under Art. 200 the Governor is not bound by ministerial advice.

• The Court called the April 2025 view "erroneous" (para 88). That view had said discretion exists only in the second proviso.

• It re-adopted para 4.5 of the Punchhi Commission report on the Governor's discretion. Nabam Rebia (2016) had already accepted that paragraph [1].

• Not justiciable (165.3): a court cannot test whether the Governor's choice was right or wrong. "Not justiciable" means a court cannot review the matter on its merits.

• Limited mandamus: a writ of mandamus is a court order telling an authority to do its duty. For inaction that is "prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite", a court can issue a limited mandamus.
• The order asks the Governor to decide within a reasonable time.

• It does not say what the decision should be [1].

• Art. 361 (165.4): the Governor as a person stays immune from courts. The office of the Governor can still be brought before the Court for prolonged inaction. This follows Rameshwar Prasad (2006) [1].

• No court-made deadlines (165.5): the Constitution sets no time limit, so courts should not invent one. Paras 260-261 of the 2025 judgment, which set the deadlines, were declared erroneous (para 114) [1].

On the President (Art. 201)

• Not justiciable (165.6): the President's decision on a reserved bill cannot be reviewed on merits [1].
• No court-made deadlines (165.7): the timeline question under Art. 201 had never actually arisen in the Tamil Nadu case (para 114) [1].
• Art. 143 is optional (165.8): the President need not consult the Court every time a bill is reserved. The President's own satisfaction is enough [1].

On the courts' own powers

• No pre-enactment challenge (165.9): courts cannot rule on what a bill says before it becomes law [1].
• No deemed assent (165.10): Art. 142 cannot replace the action of the Governor or the President. The Court said deemed assent is "virtually a takeover" of executive work by judges (para 128) [1].
• Assent is essential (165.11): a state law cannot come into force without the Governor's assent [1].
• Questions left unanswered [1]:
• Q12 (bench size under Art. 145(3)) was irrelevant to the reference.
• Q13 (the full scope of Art. 142) was too broad to answer in full.
• Q14 (the Court's jurisdiction over Union-state disputes outside Art. 131) was irrelevant to the reference.

Limits and what is still open

• Constituent Assembly history: the Assembly accepted Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's amendment deleting a "six weeks" limit on the President's assent (draft Art. 91, now Art. 111). The Court read this as a deliberate choice not to set timelines [1].
• From deadlines to dialogue: in place of deadlines, the Court asked for "dialogue, reconciliation and balance, and not obstructionism" between the Governor and the House [1].
• Remedy left to states: only the limited mandamus, decided case by case [1][3].
• Tamil Nadu's ten Acts: their status is still contested (verify current). The reason is that two parts of the opinion pull in different directions:
• No state law can operate without assent (165.11).
• Overruling a precedent does not reopen a decree [1].

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional base:
• Art. 200: the Governor's options on a state bill.
  • First proviso: return the bill "as soon as possible". If the House passes it again, the Governor "shall not withhold assent therefrom".
  • Second proviso: a bill that cuts down High Court powers must be reserved for the President.
• Art. 201: the President assents to a reserved bill or withholds assent. For a bill that is not a money bill, the President may have it returned to the House. The House must then reconsider it within six months.
• Art. 361: the President and Governors are personally immune from courts.
• Art. 142: the Court's power to do "complete justice".
• Art. 143: the President's power to ask the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion.

• Art. 141: the law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts [1].

• Background to the dispute:

• Inaction: between January 2020 and April 2023, Tamil Nadu's Governor R.N. Ravi took no action on 12 bills [2].
• The case: the state filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023 in October 2023 [2][4].
• Ten bills withheld: in November 2023, the Governor withheld assent to ten bills. Many of them moved the power to appoint university vice-chancellors from the Governor (as Chancellor) to the state government.

• Re-passed and reserved: the Assembly re-passed them on 18 November 2023. The Governor then reserved them for the President [4].

• State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (10 November 2023): the Court read "as soon as possible" as a duty to act quickly. A Governor who withholds assent must return the bill [1].

• State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (8 April 2025; 2025 INSC 481): decided by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan [2].
• Deadlines: 1 month (Governor acting on advice), 3 months (Governor acting against advice), 1 month (re-passed bill), 3 months (President) [2].

• Deemed assent: the ten bills were treated as assented from 18 November 2023. They became the first state laws in force without the assent of either the Governor or the President [4].

• Follow-up law: on 29 April 2025, Tamil Nadu introduced L.A. Bill No. 21 of 2025. It replaced "Chancellor" with "Government" in the vice-chancellor clause of the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University Act, 2004. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons relies on the ten deemed-assented Acts [4].

• Special Reference No. 1 of 2025 (opinion, 20 November 2025): the five-judge bench rejected all the 2025 deadlines and the idea of deemed assent. It kept only the limited mandamus remedy [1].

Don't confuse with

• State of Tamil Nadu judgment (April 2025) vs this reference opinion (November 2025):
• The first is a binding judgment under Art. 141, given by two judges in an Art. 32 case.

• The second is an advisory opinion under Art. 143, given by five judges in answer to the President [1].

• Limited mandamus vs deemed assent:

• A limited mandamus only orders the Governor to decide within a reasonable time. It survives.

• Deemed assent treats the bill as signed by court order. It was rejected as a "takeover" [1].

• Absolute veto vs pocket veto:

• In an absolute veto, the Governor withholds assent and the bill dies.
• In a pocket veto, the Governor takes no decision and the bill stays pending forever.

• The opinion bars withholding without returning the bill. It treats long inaction as open to a limited mandamus [1].

• Six months in Art. 201 vs no limit in Art. 200:

• Art. 201's six months is for the state legislature to reconsider a bill returned at the President's direction.
• There is no time limit for the Governor or the President [1].

Prelims Hooks

• Basic facts: Special Reference No. 1 of 2025 was the 16th Presidential reference, sent under Art. 143 on 13 May 2025 with 14 questions [3]. The opinion came on 20 November 2025 from a five-judge bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai (2025 INSC 1333) [1].
• Deadlines rejected: the opinion struck down all four 2025 deadlines: 1 / 3 / 1 / 3 months (on advice / against advice / re-passed bill / President) [2][1].
• Trap on discretion: under Art. 200 the Governor is not bound by ministerial advice when choosing among the three options. The choice is not justiciable, but "prolonged, unexplained and indefinite" inaction invites a limited mandamus [1].
• Art. 361 and Rameshwar Prasad (2006): the Governor's person is immune, but the office is subject to the Court's jurisdiction for inaction [1].
• Constituent Assembly: it deleted a "six weeks" limit on presidential assent (draft Art. 91, now Art. 111) [1].
• Unanswered questions: Q12 (Art. 145(3)) and Q14 (disputes outside Art. 131) were returned unanswered. Q13 (Art. 142) was too broad to answer in full [1].

Mains Points

• Federalism vs separation of powers:
• The Court's view: courts cannot write deadlines or grant deemed assent, because that would be a "takeover" of executive work [1].
• The federal cost: a Union-appointed Governor, who holds office "during the pleasure of the President", could sit on 12 bills from 2020 to 2023 [2]. Without deadlines, "as soon as possible" can be ignored, and responsible government (a government answerable to the elected legislature) is weakened.

• The weak remedy: the limited mandamus comes after the delay has happened, and it leads to fresh court cases.

• Reform through amendment, not courts:

• Parliament could amend Arts. 200 and 201 to add time limits. Counsel cited Sarkaria (1988) and Punchhi (2010) for a six-month limit, and NCRWC (2002) also suggested one [1].
• Parliament could also limit the Governor's role as university Chancellor, the trigger for the Tamil Nadu dispute.

• However, most commission recommendations on Governors have been ignored [5].

• Precedent vs advisory opinion:

• Under Art. 141, a judgment binds all courts. An Art. 143 opinion is formally only advice.
• Yet when a five-judge bench calls parts of a binding judgment "erroneous", that judgment loses much of its weight as precedent.
• This lets the Executive reopen a case it lost without filing a review or curative petition. It argues for clearer rules on when the Court may decline a reference [1].

Related concepts

• State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu

Read more

• Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025) and the Presidential reference opinion