Legal Process Must Prevail Over Face-Off

If the Supreme Court can set aside the presidential order under Article 356, there is no reason why the President's powers or that of the Governor are not subject to judicial review

- KAPIL SIBAL

On May 14, 2025, the President of India, exercising her powers under Article 143 of the Constitution, sought the Supreme Court's opinion on the imposition of timelines for the President and the Governors to act under Articles 200 and 201. The President referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court for its opinion. This was apparently necessary because of the judgment of the Supreme Court's Bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan on April 8, 2025.

Before dealing with the questions, it is essential to set out the context in which they were raised. This case refers to the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly, which passed 12 Bills and forwarded them to the Governor between January 13, 2020, and April 28, 2023, for his assent under Article 200. These Bills lay dormant till October 2023. The Governor's inaction led to filing a petition requiring the Governor to act.

Under Article 200, if a Bill passed by the Legislature is presented to the Governor, he may either assent to the Bill or withhold assent therefrom. The Governor is required to give his assent as soon as possible. This reflects that he must do so expeditiously despite no fixed timeline. The Governor can also return a bill to the Legislature for reconsideration. If the Legislature, upon reconsideration, passes the Bill with or without amendments, the Governor cannot withhold assent therefrom.

The Governor may also reserve the Bill for consideration of the President, who, under Article 201, may either give or withhold his assent. Though no timeline has been prescribed, it must be implied that the President will do so expeditiously.

It is in this context that issues relating to the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 were raised before the Supreme Court, which decided as follows: