New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 20) held that the top court cannot impose any timelines for decisions of the President and the governor on granting assent to Bills under Articles 200/201 of the constitution, LiveLaw reported.A five-judge constitution bench, comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, was responding to a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu that questioned the apex court’s authority to impose deadlines for the governor and President.The bench said that the imposition of timelines “is strictly contrary to the elasticity that the constitution has preserved”. “The concept of ‘deemed assent’ in the context of Articles 200 and 201 presupposes that one constitutional authority, namely the court, could play a substitutional role for another constitutional functionary authority – the governor or President. Such usurpation of gubernatorial powers or those of the president is antithetical to the spirit of the constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers,” the top court held, as quoted by Bar and Bench.The bench concluded that actions of the President or governor with respect to a bill cannot be agitated before the court; and that any action before the court or for judicial review will lie only when the bill becomes law. However, in cases of prolonged delay, the top court said that the courts can issue a limited direction to the governor to decide on a bill.The presidential reference was made in May following the judgment delivered by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which laid down timelines for the President and the governor to act on the assent, withholding and reservation of bills. Legal scholar and lawyer Gautam Bhatia said on X soon after the ruling:I’ve said a lot about the blatant misuse of reference powers that have brought us this “Opinion”, but here’s one more thing: through this, the SC has, primarily, vastly increased its own political power. Because what will happen now is that states whose bills are being stalled + https://t.co/bCrfc61Jsg— Gautam Bhatia (@gautambhatia88) November 20, 2025What SC said in Tamil Nadu caseIn that judgement, the Supreme Court laid out five kinds of situations in which a state government can challenge a governor’s decision to reserve a bill for consideration by the President.These grounds include, first, when a Bill is reserved under the second proviso to Article 200. Second, when the President’s assent is a pre-requisite for proper enactment and enforcement of the law. Third, where the bill puts democracy or democratic principles in peril. Fourth, when the bill is on hold due to the governor’s personal dissatisfation or political expediency. And fifth, to challenge the governor’s inaction upon being presented a bill under Article 200.The second proviso to Article 200 relates to a state bill that would reduce or take away any powers of a high court. Such a bill must be referred to the President. The Supreme Court held that in such cases, a state government can approach the top court seeking redress.The same judgement lays out three grounds under which a state government could assail the President’s decision to reserve a bill, once it has been forwarded to him/her by the governor. These are: first, when the President withholds assent in an arbitrary or mala fide manner; second, when the President reserves a bill that the governor had considered patently unconstitutional; and third, when the President exceeds the time limits set in that very ruling.In the second instance, the Supreme Court held that the President can refer a question of unconstitutionality to itself. In the third, the court held that the state can bring forward a writ of Mandamus – asking the President to perform his legal and constitutional obligations.As per the framework of the Tamil Nadu judgment, a state government can seek out the court to seek redressal if any of these scenarios happens to arise.What the present ruling saysThe top court had heard the matter for ten days before reserving its opinion on September 11. The court answered 14 questions raised by President Draupadi Murmu, concerning the powers of the governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively.Here are the 14 questions and the Supreme Court’s answers:1. What are the constitutional options before a governor when a bill is presented to him under Article 200?The top court said that upon presentation of the bill, the governor has three options: assent to it, withhold assent or reserve for President’s assent. The first proviso to Article 200 – which says that the bill must be returned to the assembly – is not a fourth option, but qualifies the option of withholding assent, as, otherwise, it would derogate the principle of federalism. Thus, if assent to a bill is withheld, then it must necessarily be returned to the assembly, the court said. The third option – to withhold assent and return the bill with comments – it noted, is only available to the governor when it is not a money bill.2. Is the governor bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers while exercising all the options available when a bill is presented under Article 200? Under Article 200, the governor enjoys discretion from the three constitutional options (assent, reservation and withholding), as indicated by the use of the words “in his opinion” in the second proviso of the article. The governor, thus, has discretion either to return the bill or to reserve it for the President.The governor is also not bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers, while exercising his function under Article 200.3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the governor under Article 200 justiciable?The discharge of the governor’s function under Article 200 is not justiciable. The bench said that the Supreme Court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision so taken. However, in glaring circumstances of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite, the court can issue a limited mandamus for the governor to discharge his function under Article 200 within a reasonable time period, without making any observations on the merits of the exercise of his discretion.4. Is Article 361 an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a governor under Article 200?The bench said that though Article 361 is an absolute bar on judicial review (Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India), it cannot be used to negate the limited scope of judicial review that the top court is empowered to exercise in cases of prolonged inaction by the governor under Article 200. While the governor enjoys personal immunity, the bench clarified, the constitutional office of the governor is subject to this court’s jurisdiction. 5. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the governor?The imposition of timelines would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the constitution so carefully preserves, the top court noted. In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the governor, it would not be appropriate for this Court to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200.6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 justiciable?For similar reasoning as held for the governor under Article 200, the President’s assent under Article 201 is not justiciable. 7. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201?For the same reason, the President too cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 201.8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent or otherwise?The President is not required to seek the advice of the Supreme Court every time a bill is reserved by the governor, as per the constitutional scheme. The subjective satisfaction of the President is sufficient, the court said. If there is a lack of clarity or need for advice, the President may refer to the top court under Article 143, as it has done on numerous previous occasions.9. Are the decisions of the governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a bill, in any manner, before it becomes law? No, the decisions of the governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, are not justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force. Bills can be challenged only if they become law. The discharge of its role under Article 143 does not constitute ‘judicial adjudication’, it noted.10. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President/governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142?No, the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of the President/governor cannot be substituted by this court in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The bench further clarified that the constitution, specifically Article 142, does not allow the concept of “deemed assent” of bills.11. Is a law made by the state legislature a law in force without the assent of the governor granted under Article 200?The bench answered this in accordance with its opinion on Question 10. It reiterated that there is no question of a law made by the state legislature coming into force without assent of the governor under Article 200, as the governor’s legislative role cannot be supplanted by another constitutional authority.12. In view of the proviso to Article 145(3), is it not mandatory for any bench of this Hon’ble Court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of constitution and to refer it to a Bench of minimum five Judges? The bench returned this question unanswered, stating: “We have already indicated in our opinion that Question 12 relating to Article 145(3) and the composition of benches in this court that hear cases of constitutional importance is irrelevant to the functional nature of this reference.”13. Are the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 limited to matters of procedural law or does Article 142 extend to issuing directions/passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the constitution or law in force?The bench said that it has already indicated, as part of Question 10, that its opinion that the question is “overly broad”, and thus “not possible to answer in a definitive manner”.14. Does the constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union government and the state governments, except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution?The bench left this unanswered as it found it irrelevant.