In a significant constitutional ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified the powers of Governors, responding to 14 questions referred by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution. The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, addressed the long-standing queries describing the Governor’s role in giving assent to state legislation. It also addressed the President’s role when Bills are reserved.

Below is a detailed summary of the questions raised by the President and the responses given by Supreme Court rewritten in precise and simple language:

Q1: Describe a Governor's options when a Bill is presented for assent under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution?

The Governor has three constitutional options: give assent to the Bill, return it with comments to the legislature for reconsideration (except for Money Bills), or reserve it for the president’s consideration. Withholding of assent indefinitely is not permitted.

Q2: Is a Governor bound to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers when deciding on assent, return, or reservation of a Bill?

No. While generally acting on ministerial advice, the Governor enjoys discretion in choosing the appropriate course of action under Article 200.

Q3: Can the Governor’s exercise of discretion under Article 200 be reviewed by the courts?

The merits of the Governor’s decision are not subject to judicial review. How, if the Governor unreasonably delays or fails to act, the court can issue directions to ensure action within a reasonable timeframe.

Q4: Does Article 361 provide absolute protection to the Governor against judicial review?

No. Article 361 only protects the Governor from personal liability. It does not bar courts from reviewing prolonged inaction affecting the functioning of the office.

Q5: Do courts have discretion to impose timelines on the Governor to exercise powers under Article 200?

No. The Constitution’s “as soon as possible” provision grants flexible discretion, and courts cannot prescribe fixed deadlines. The Governor is expected to act within a reasonable period.

Q6: Is the President’s exercise of discretion under Article 201 justiciable?

No. The President’s decision regarding Bills reserved for assent is not subject to judicial review.

Q7: Can courts impose timelines for the President under Article 201?

No. Courts cannot impose timelines and compel the President to act within a specific timeframe.

Q8: Is the President required to consult the Supreme Court before acting on a Bill reserved for assent?

No. The President may refer a Bill to the Supreme Court if needed, but consultation is not mandatory; the President’s subjective satisfaction suffices.

Q9: Can courts review the contents of a Bill or the Governor/President’s decisions before the Bill becomes law?

No. Judicial review applies only after a Bill becomes law; courts cannot adjudicate on the Bill’s content while it is pending.

Q10: Can the Supreme Court use Article 142 to substitute or override constitutional assent requirements?

Article 142 cannot override direct constitutional provisions, and also the Court rejected the concept of “deemed assent.”

Q11: Does a Bill become law without the Governor’s or President’s assent?

No. Legislative passage alone is not sufficient; formal assent by the Governor or President is required for the Bill to become law.

Q12: Is it mandatory for a Supreme Court bench to first determine if a question requires a five-judge bench under Article 145(3)?

The Court considered this question irrelevant to the Presidential reference and left it unanswered.

Q13: Can Article 142 powers be used to issue directions or orders inconsistent with constitutional provisions?

The Court found this question overbroad and said it require a definitive answer which is kind of answered in question 10.

Q14: Can the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction outside Article 131 to resolve disputes between the Union and States?

The Court deemed this question irrelevant to the reference and returned it unanswered.

This ruling provides clarity on the role and power of Governor, preserves executive independence, and ensures accountability. The Court emphasized that Governors have constitutional discretion under Article 200, but cannot delay assent indefinitely. Similarly, the President enjoys discretion under Article 201, but judicially imposed timelines are inappropriate. The rejection of “deemed assent” ensures that the legislative process remains constitutionally intact.

Experts say this verdict will have impactful implications for state legislation, political governance, and constitutional law in India. It sets a precedent for Governors to exercise powers responsibly, balances federal powers, and maintains the separation of powers while ensuring accountability.

With high relevance in constitutional law, political governance, and legislative procedure, this verdict is expected to drive significant attention from lawmakers, students, and legal observers across the country.