A Governor cannot simply keep a State Bill pending indefinitely. But the Supreme Court has also made it clear that courts cannot impose rigid deadlines on Governors or create “deemed assent” if a Bill is not decided within a particular period.
In In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, 2025 INSC 1333, decided on 20 November 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench clarified how Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution operate. The ruling substantially changed several propositions stated earlier in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 481, decided on 8 April 2025.
The official Supreme Court opinion can be read here: Supreme Court judgment — Special Reference No. 1 of 2025
Why was there a Presidential Reference in 2025?
The controversy arose after the Supreme Court's April 2025 decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu.
In that case, a two-judge Bench prescribed timelines within which Governors should act on Bills and, in the particular circumstances before it, used Article 142 to treat certain Bills as having received assent.
On 13 May 2025, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution and referred 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court. These concerned, among other things, the Governor's powers under Article 200, Presidential consideration under Article 201, judicial review, timelines, Article 361 immunity and the use of Article 142.
The matter was ultimately answered by a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar on 20 November 2025.
For the constitutional text itself, see Articles 200 and 201 in the Constitution of India — India Code.
What can a Governor actually do when a State Bill is presented?
The Constitution Bench held that Article 200 gives the Governor three constitutional courses at the initial stage.
Situation
Governor's constitutional course
Governor agrees with the Bill
Give assent
Governor considers Presidential consideration necessary
Reserve the Bill for the President
Governor does not wish to assent to a non-Money Bill
Withhold assent and return it to the Legislature with comments
The important point is that “withholding assent” is not a power to simply put a Bill away indefinitely. The Court interpreted withholding under Article 200 together with its first proviso: in the case of a non-Money Bill, withholding is linked to returning the Bill to the Legislature for reconsideration.
The second proviso to Article 200 creates a separate mandatory situation. If, in the Governor's opinion, a Bill would so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the constitutional position of that Court, the Governor must reserve it for consideration of the President.
Is the Governor bound by the State Cabinet's advice?
Not in the same way as in the ordinary exercise of executive functions.
The Constitution Bench held that while exercising the functions specifically arising under Article 200, the Governor enjoys constitutional discretion in choosing among the available options and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
However, that should not be read as saying that the Governor may act arbitrarily or entirely disregard the elected government. The judgment also explained that the Governor must give due regard to the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers and act consistently with the constitutional duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
This is one of the areas where the November 2025 opinion differs materially from the approach taken in the earlier Tamil Nadu Governor judgment.
What happens if the Legislature passes the Bill again?
This is another important change following the Presidential Reference.
Article 200 says that where a non-Money Bill has been returned for reconsideration and the Legislature passes it again, the Governor “shall not withhold assent therefrom.”
But the Constitution Bench held that this removes only the option of withholding the Bill again. It does not remove the Governor's separate constitutional power to reserve the Bill for Presidential consideration.
Accordingly, once the Bill returns after reconsideration, the Governor has two possible courses: grant assent or reserve the Bill for the President. The Court said reservation can remain available whether the Legislature returns the Bill with or without amendments.
This differs from the April 2025 Tamil Nadu decision, which had taken a narrower view of the Governor's ability to reserve a Bill after reconsideration.
Is there now a fixed deadline for the Governor to decide?
No.
The November 2025 Constitution Bench expressly rejected judicially prescribed general timelines under Article 200.
The Court reasoned that because the Constitution itself does not prescribe a fixed period for exercising the Article 200 functions, it would not be appropriate for a court to insert a uniform deadline into the constitutional provision.
This means that the one-month and three-month timelines discussed in the April 2025 Tamil Nadu judgment should not be treated as the governing constitutional rule after the Constitution Bench's opinion.
But this does not mean that a Governor may leave a Bill untouched forever.
Can a court intervene if a Governor simply does nothing?
Yes, but the scope of intervention is narrow.
The Constitution Bench drew a distinction between reviewing what decision the Governor makes and dealing with a Governor who fails to make any decision.
The merits of the Governor's Article 200 choice are ordinarily not open to judicial review. However, where there is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction, a court may issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to discharge the constitutional function within a reasonable period.
The court is not supposed to tell the Governor whether to assent, return or reserve the Bill. It can require the constitutional function to be performed.
That distinction is central to understanding the 2025 opinion:
No judicially created universal deadline — but also no constitutional licence for endless inaction.
Does Article 361 completely protect the Governor from court proceedings?
Article 361 gives the Governor significant personal constitutional immunity, but it does not put the constitutional office itself entirely beyond judicial scrutiny.
The Supreme Court held that a Governor cannot personally be subjected to judicial proceedings in a manner prohibited by Article 361. At the same time, Article 361 cannot be used to defeat the limited judicial jurisdiction available where there is prolonged constitutional inaction.
The Court therefore distinguished between the personal immunity of the Governor and the amenability of the constitutional office and governmental action to appropriate judicial scrutiny.
The official constitutional text of Article 361 is available through the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice.
Can courts declare that a Bill has received “deemed assent”?
No. The Constitution Bench rejected that approach.
The Court held that neither Article 200 nor Article 201 contains a general mechanism under which assent is automatically deemed to have been granted simply because a period of time has expired.
More importantly, the Supreme Court held that Article 142 cannot be used to substitute the constitutional function of the Governor or President by judicially declaring assent to a Bill.
According to the Court, doing so would amount to the judiciary taking over a function assigned by the Constitution to another constitutional authority.
The Constitution Bench therefore expressly clarified that Article 142 does not permit courts to create “deemed assent” to State Bills.
What did the Supreme Court say about the President under Article 201?
When a Bill is reserved for Presidential consideration, Article 201 becomes relevant.
The Constitution Bench held that the President's assent under Article 201 is not subject to a merits review by courts and that courts cannot impose judicially created fixed timelines on the President either.
The Court also rejected the proposition that every Bill reserved for the President must automatically be referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143.
The President may seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion where considered necessary, but an Article 143 reference is not a compulsory step each time a State Bill is reserved.
Can a court examine whether a Bill is constitutional before it becomes law?
Ordinarily, no.
The Constitution Bench held that courts should not undertake substantive judicial adjudication of the contents of a Bill under Articles 200 or 201 before the Bill becomes law.
The validity of legislation can, of course, be challenged after enactment on recognised constitutional grounds. But courts should not ordinarily convert the assent stage itself into a pre-enactment constitutional trial of the Bill.
Did the Presidential Reference “overrule” the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment?
The legally safer answer is that the 2025 Constitution Bench rejected and displaced several important legal propositions stated in the April 2025 Tamil Nadu Governor judgment.
Those include the use of judicially prescribed general timelines, deemed assent under Article 142, the treatment of the Governor's discretion under Article 200 and the extent to which a repassed Bill may subsequently be reserved for the President.
It would, however, be too broad to say casually that every part of the Tamil Nadu judgment disappeared.
The Constitution Bench specifically considered whether Article 143 could be used where questions overlapped with an earlier Supreme Court decision. Relying on earlier Article 143 jurisprudence, it held that the Supreme Court may re-examine an earlier view and, where necessary, overrule it in advisory jurisdiction; it also treated the constitutional opinion as authoritative for other courts.
The result is that the constitutional propositions declared by the five-judge Bench on 20 November 2025 are now the important starting point for understanding Articles 200 and 201.
For comparison, the earlier judgment is available here: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu — 8 April 2025.
What is the practical position after the 2025 Presidential Reference?
The present position can be summarised simply.
A Governor must perform the constitutional function under Article 200 rather than indefinitely keeping a Bill in limbo. At the initial stage, the Governor may assent, reserve the Bill for the President, or—where it is a non-Money Bill—withhold assent and return it for reconsideration.
The Governor has constitutional discretion in making that choice and is not bound by the State Council of Ministers' advice under Article 200, although the advice must receive due regard.
If the Legislature passes a returned Bill again, withholding is no longer available, but reservation for Presidential consideration can still remain available.
Courts cannot prescribe a universal one-month or three-month constitutional deadline. They also cannot declare automatic or “deemed” assent through Article 142.
At the same time, prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction can attract a limited judicial direction requiring the constitutional function to be performed.
That is the balance struck by the Constitution Bench between legislative democracy, gubernatorial responsibility, federalism and judicial restraint.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Governor keep a State Bill pending forever?
No. Although there is no judicially fixed universal deadline, prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction can result in limited judicial intervention directing the Governor to act.
Is there a three-month deadline for Governors to assent to Bills?
No general three-month constitutional deadline survives as the governing rule after the November 2025 Constitution Bench opinion.
Can the Governor reject a Bill permanently?
For a non-Money Bill, withholding assent is tied to returning the Bill with a message for reconsideration. The Supreme Court rejected an interpretation permitting a simple indefinite veto.
Is the Governor bound by the Chief Minister and Cabinet on assent to Bills?
The 2025 Constitution Bench held that the Governor is not bound by the Council of Ministers' advice when exercising the Article 200 function, although due regard must be given to that advice.
What happens when the Assembly passes a returned Bill again?
The Governor cannot withhold it again. Under the 2025 Constitution Bench interpretation, the Governor may assent or reserve it for Presidential consideration.
Can a court automatically treat an undecided Bill as assented to?
No. The Supreme Court held that Article 142 cannot be used to create “deemed assent” and substitute the Governor's or President's constitutional function.
Is every Governor's decision on a Bill open to judicial review?
No. Courts ordinarily cannot review the merits of the constitutional choice made under Article 200. Their intervention is substantially narrower where the complaint concerns prolonged and unexplained inaction.
Must the President consult the Supreme Court whenever a Bill is reserved?
No. A reference under Article 143 is available when considered necessary, but it is not compulsory for every Bill reserved under Article 200.
Related Law Wallet reading
Readers following important Supreme Court developments can also explore Law Wallet's Legal Insights, the analysis of Supreme Court safeguards governing re-arrest after an unconstitutional arrest, and the discussion on fake AI-generated case citations and Supreme Court proceedings.
For businesses looking at broader regulatory, governance and legal-risk issues, see Law Wallet's Corporate & Strategic Advisory practice.
