IN RE : ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA
Provides detailed analysis of constitutional provisions, separation of powers, and judicial review.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1333
Decision Date: 20-11-2025
List of Laws
The Constitution of India; Government of India Act, 1919; Government of India Act, 1935; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Advocates Act, 1961; General Principles of Law
- The Constitution of India: The judgment extensively discusses several Articles of the Constitution, providing interpretations and analyses relevant to the powers and functions of the Governor and the President. Article 3: Discussed in the context of whether an Act under this Article is sufficient to implement a bilateral agreement concerning cession of some parts of territory. The significance lies in understanding the scope of parliamentary power in international agreements. The practical implication is for lawyers dealing with international law and constitutional law. Article 29 & 30: Discussed in relation to the constitutional validity of a Bill. The court's analysis is significant as it reinforces the importance of minority rights. For legal practitioners, the key takeaway is the heightened burden of proof required when dealing with minority rights. Article 31: Discussed in the context of land reform enactments and compliance with Article 31(3). The court was called upon to decide whether the assent of the Governor was a perquisite for the reservation of the ‘law' for the assent of the President. Article 32: Mentioned as being invoked by States frequently, raising federal issues. The significance lies in highlighting the use of Article 32 for federal disputes, even though Article 131 might be more appropriate. The practical implication is for lawyers advising States on approaching the Supreme Court. Article 56, 62, 70, 71: Interpreted with regards to the election of the President. The court's analysis is significant as it reinforces the importance of presidential elections. For legal practitioners, the key takeaway is the heightened burden of proof required when dealing with presidential elections. Article 131: Discussed as the appropriate avenue for resolving disputes between the Union and the States. The significance lies in clarifying the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. The practical implication is for lawyers advising States on approaching the Supreme Court. Article 142: The judgment analyzes the scope of Article 142, emphasizing that it cannot be used to supplant constitutional provisions or create new legal frameworks. The Court declines to answer Question 13 concerning the power of this Court under Article 142 as worded in such broad terms that it is not possible to answer it in a comprehensive and definitive manner. However, Question 10 which also concerns the use of Article 142, but raised in the context of the functions of the Governor and the President, will be answered in the course of this opinion. The significance lies in setting limits on the Supreme Court's power to do "complete justice". The practical implication is for lawyers arguing cases relying on Article 142. Article 143: The judgment extensively discusses Article 143, the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It clarifies that while the Court has the power to overrule previous views, it cannot sit in appeal over its own decisions through a reference under Article 143. The significance lies in defining the scope and limitations of the Supreme Court's advisory role. The practical implication is for lawyers and the government when considering presidential references. Article 145(3): The judgment declines to answer Question 12 concerning itself with Article 145(3) and the composition of benches in the Supreme Court which should hear cases concerning substantial questions of law involving the interpretation of the Constitution. Article 155: Cited as the basis for the President's power to appoint the Governor. This is a foundational element for understanding the Governor's role as a non-elected appointee. Article 163: Discussed in relation to whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The judgment clarifies that while the Governor generally acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, there are exceptions where the Governor can exercise discretion. The significance lies in understanding the balance between the Governor's discretion and the Council's advice. The practical implication is for lawyers advising Governors and State governments. Article 168: Cited as the provision that constitutionally engrafts the Governor as part of the State legislature. This is a key element in understanding the Governor's legislative functions. Article 174: Cited regarding the Governor's power to summon, prorogue, and dissolve the House. Article 175: Cited regarding the Right of Governor to address and send messages to the House or Houses. Article 176: Cited regarding the Special address by the Governor. Article 188: Cited regarding the Oath or affirmation by members. Article 198: Cited regarding the Special procedure in respect of Money Bills. Article 199: Cited regarding the Definition of “Money Bills". Article 200: The core of the judgment revolves around the interpretation of Article 200, concerning the Governor's options when a Bill is presented for assent. The judgment clarifies that the Governor has three options: assent, withhold assent and return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve the Bill for the President's consideration. It emphasizes that the Governor cannot withhold assent simpliciter. The significance lies in defining the scope of the Governor's power over state legislation. The practical implication is for lawyers advising Governors and State governments on legislative matters. Article 201: Discussed in conjunction with Article 200, concerning the President's powers when a Bill is reserved for consideration. The judgment clarifies that the President's assent is not justiciable and that there are no judicially prescribed timelines for the President to act. The significance lies in defining the scope of the President's power over state legislation. The practical implication is for lawyers advising the President and the Union government on legislative matters. Article 202: Cited regarding the Annual financial statement. Article 203: Cited regarding the Procedure in Legislature with respect to estimates. Article 205: Cited regarding the Supplementary, additional or excess grants. Article 207: Cited regarding the Special provisions as to financial Bills. Article 213: Cited regarding the power of the Governor to promulgate ordinances. Article 234: Cited regarding the appointment of persons other than district judges to the State Judicial Services. Article 245 & 246: Cited regarding the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States. Article 252: Mentioned in the context of whether a resolution passed under Article 252 by the State legislature must also contain the signatures of the Governor. Article 254(2): Discussed in the context of repugnancy between state and central laws. The judgment clarifies that the President's assent under Article 254(2) is not justiciable. Article 288(2): Discussed in the context of exemption from taxation by States in respect of water or electricity in certain cases. Article 289: Mentioned in the context of whether a draft Bill was exempted under this Article. Article 304: Discussed in the context of restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse among States. Article 356: Cited regarding the Governor can send a report to the President that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. Article 360: Discussed in the context of financial emergency. Article 361: The judgment analyzes the interplay between Article 361, which provides protection to the President and Governors, and judicial review. It clarifies that while Article 361 provides personal immunity, it does not bar the Court from examining the validity of the Governor's actions, including on the ground of mala fides. The significance lies in balancing the need for executive independence with accountability. The practical implication is for lawyers challenging the actions of Governors. Article 370: Discussed in the context of asymmetric federalism. Article 371A, 371C, 371E, 371H, 371J: Cited regarding the Governor's responsibility for certain regions.
- Government of India Act, 1919: Section 12 is discussed as a precursor to Article 200, highlighting the phrase "instead of" in relation to assent and withhold, postulating that the succeeding option of returning the Bill was an option divorced from the option of withhold and a completely different option.
- Government of India Act, 1935: Section 75 is discussed as a precursor to Article 200, with arguments made that the Governor thereunder was empowered to withhold a Bill simpliciter. The judgment rejects this argument, stating that a colonial appointee's power cannot inform the interpretation of a democratic Constitution. Section 306 is discussed as a precursor to Article 361.
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197 is mentioned in the context of the legality of grant of sanction by the Governor under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for the prosecution of two ministers accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after the Council of Ministers had refused sanction on the ground that no prima facie case had been made out in the Lokayukta report.
- The Advocates Act, 1961: Section 30 is mentioned in the context of a writ petition that alleged inaction by the Union Government in bringing into force Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, despite 25 years having elapsed since the Act had been passed.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment touches upon the doctrine of separation of powers, emphasizing its importance as a basic feature of the Constitution. It clarifies that while there may be some overlap of functions, no organ can usurp the functions of another. The significance lies in reinforcing the balance of power between the three organs of the state. The practical implication is for all branches of government to respect the boundaries of their respective powers.
🔒 For Members Only