In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India vs N/A

Bench: 5 — D.Y. Chandrachud, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra

In Brief

The Supreme Court answered 14 constitutional questions on the Governor's and President's powers over Bills under Articles 200 and 201. The Governor has three options: assent, return with message for reconsideration (except Money Bills), or reserve for the President. The Governor acts with discretion here, not strictly bound by ministerial advice. Courts cannot impose timelines or 'deemed assent'—both violate the Constitution's design. Bill adjudication before enactment is not justiciable, preserving legislative independence. However, prolonged inaction invites limited judicial review. Article 142 cannot substitute constitutional functions. The ruling reaffirms federal balance and dialogic constitutionalism while preventing gubernatorial pocket vetoes.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Federalism Separation of Powers Presidential Reference Advisory Jurisdiction Legislative Procedure Governor's Powers Judicial Review Article 200 and 201 Article 142 Article 143 Article 361 Deemed Assent Institutional Accountability Constitutional Dialogue

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.