Supreme Court to Review President’s Questions on Governor Powers, Article 142 Scope
Updated on 2025-07-22T14:56:15+05:30
Supreme Court to Review President’s Questions on Governor Powers, Article 142 Scope
On Tuesday, July 22, 2025, a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai noted that the constitutional questions raised by President Droupadi Murmu regarding whether timelines can be imposed on the President and Governors when reviewing State legislation are of national significance. The five-judge Bench, which includes Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, decided to hear the matter in mid-August, around Independence Day.
The court issued notices to all State governments and the Centre, seeking their responses within a week. CJI Gavai clarified that all issues in the Presidential Reference would remain open for consideration.
The Reference, issued on May 13, invokes Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion. It broadly asks whether judicial intervention can impose deadlines on constitutional functions of the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the assent to State Bills and the reservation of Bills for Presidential consideration.
The move follows a controversial Supreme Court ruling on April 8, where a two-judge Bench held the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in processing 10 re-passed Bills as unconstitutional. The court had invoked Article 142 to declare that all 10 Bills had received assent, prompting criticism and concern over judicial overreach into executive functions.
Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, representing Kerala, questioned the maintainability of the Presidential Reference. Tamil Nadu’s counsel, P. Wilson, argued that the April 8 verdict already addressed the President’s questions. However, CJI Gavai emphasized that the matter involved all States and required broader scrutiny.
The Reference questions whether the President or Governors’ powers under Articles 200 and 201 can be subject to court-imposed timelines and whether the judiciary can direct the manner in which these powers are exercised. It also challenges whether the Supreme Court can substitute executive powers through Article 142 and asks whether "deemed assent" — as invoked in the Tamil Nadu case — fits within constitutional limits.
Further, the Reference raises doubts about whether actions under Articles 200 and 201 can be challenged in court before a Bill becomes law, and whether courts can intervene in matters related to a Bill's content pre-enactment.
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar had earlier described Article 142 as a "nuclear missile" against democratic institutions. The Supreme Court, however, defended its use of the provision, stating it was applied after deep deliberation and in public interest to address clear constitutional violations by the Governor.
The Reference also questions the legality of a two-judge Bench ruling on significant constitutional issues without referring the matter to a Constitution Bench, as required under Article 145(3).
Moreover, the Reference revisits basic interpretations of Article 200, such as the scope of a Governor’s discretion, the extent to which they are bound by the State Cabinet’s advice, and whether Article 361, which grants immunity to the President and Governors, bars judicial scrutiny of their actions under Article 200.
The April 8 ruling had firmly stated that Governors must act within a reasonable time and follow Cabinet advice, reinforcing the democratic principle that legislative processes reflect the will of the people.