It is not often that Rashtrapati Bhavan sends a constitutional puzzle to the Supreme Court. Yet earlier this year, President Droupadi Murmu did exactly that. Invoking Article 143, a rarely used provision that allows the President to seek the Court’s advisory opinion, she asked the Supreme Court to untangle a series of disputes that have repeatedly strained Centre–State relations.
At the heart of the matter was a simple but politically explosive question: What exactly can Governors and the President do when Bills reach their desk?
For years, state governments have accused Governors of sitting on Bills, delaying assent, or sending legislation to the President without clear reasons. The Union government, too, has faced similar allegations regarding Bills passed by Parliament. These tensions have grown so frequent that the boundaries of constitutional discretion began to appear blurry. So, the Supreme Court was asked to step in—not with a judgment, but with clarity.
What emerged on Thursday ( November 20, 2025) was a thoughtful roadmap on how these high offices ought to function, and perhaps more importantly, how far their powers stretch.
The Governor’s Desk: Not a Veto Corner
The Supreme Court began by addressing the core confusion: what choices does a Governor actually have? Under Article 200, a Governor may give assent, withhold it, return a Bill for reconsideration (unless it is a Money Bill), or reserve it for the President. On paper, this seems straightforward. In practice, it has sparked months-long stalemates between Raj Bhavans and state governments.
The Court was firm and unambiguous. The Governor is not an independent political actor. They must act on the aid and advice of the elected Council of Ministers.
This reminder goes to the heart of India’s parliamentary democracy. The Governor’s office is not a parallel power centre. It is a constitutional guardrail meant to support democratic functioning, not to reshape or override it. By emphasising this, the Court reaffirmed the spirit of Cabinet responsibility that anchors the Constitution.
Discretion, But with Limits
Another thorny question concerned the elusive “discretion” of the Governor. Can courts intervene if a Governor misuses this discretion? The Supreme Court’s answer balanced constitutional respect with judicial oversight.
The act of granting or withholding assent is not reviewable. But the manner in which that decision is made absolutely can be. If Governor delays action unreasonably or acts in a way that undermines democratic governance, courts may examine whether constitutional boundaries were crossed.
In other words, the decision is protected. The process is not.
This subtle distinction is likely to shape future Centre–State tussles.
No Constitutional Black Hole: Courts Can Set Reasonable Timelines
One of the biggest irritants for state governments has been indefinite delays. Bills have remained stuck for months, and in some cases more than a year, without a final decision. The Constitution does not prescribe a timeline for Governors or the President, but the Court stepped in to fill that vacuum.
Judges made it clear that constitutional silence does not justify administrative paralysis. If delays undermine governance or frustrate legislative intent, courts can intervene and set reasonable timelines. This is a significant development, especially for states whose legislative agendas have been repeatedly stalled.
Can Assent Powers Be Stretched Through Article 142? Absolutely Not.
Some questions tested the limits of constitutional creativity, including whether Governors or the President could draw inspiration from Article 142—the Supreme Court’s extraordinary power to do complete justice.
The Court’s response was crisp: Article 142 is a judicial tool. It cannot be borrowed or repurposed by the executive. Presidents and Governors cannot enlarge their powers using it.
Where the Court Drew the Line
Not every question landed within the Court’s advisory mandate. For instance, disputes that looked more political than legal were returned unanswered, reminding all parties that the advisory jurisdiction cannot become a forum for hypothetical or speculative debates.
A Quiet but Powerful Reset
What makes this advisory opinion particularly important is its tone. Without harsh words or political commentary, the Supreme Court has gently but firmly re-centred the constitutional balance. It reaffirmed that these exalted offices, though dignified and powerful are not meant to be sites of political manoeuvring.
The Court’s message is clear that constitutional functionaries are custodians, not combatants.
By clarifying timelines, reaffirming the supremacy of elected governments, and limiting discretionary overhang, the Supreme Court has offered a quiet reset to India’s federal fabric. In an era of frequent friction between States and Raj Bhavans, these guidelines act like a much-needed compass.
It may not be a sweeping judgment, but it is a steadying hand—nudging all stakeholders back toward the constitutional path. And at a time when legislative processes often find themselves entangled in political contestation, that clarity is worth more than ever.
