New Delhi (ABC Live): In May 2025, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) and asked the Supreme Court to examine 14 constitutional questions. Chief Justice B.R. Gavai leads the Constitution Bench that is considering these issues.

The President acted after the Tamil Nadu Governor delayed assent on several state Bills. Shortly after, the Supreme Court hinted at a “deemed assent” doctrine, raising concerns about judicial overreach. To resolve the deadlock and prevent fragmented rulings, the Union recommended a Presidential Reference.

As a result, the Court must now clarify the limits of gubernatorial discretion, the President’s powers under Article 201, the justiciability of these functions, and the extent of judicial creativity under Article 142. Together, these answers will shape the future of India’s federal balance.

📝 Editor’s Note — Why ABC Live is Publishing This Report Now

Why now?

• The Supreme Court has already spent more than 10 full hearing days (coverage by Supreme Court Observer) up to 9 September 2025.

• Meanwhile, several States — Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Punjab, Karnataka, and Telangana — have contested the Union’s stance in open court (Bar & Bench report).

How this report is unique
✔ Provides clear answers to all 14 questions with landmark case law:

• Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)

• Nabam Rebia (2016)

• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)

• SCBA v. UOI (1998)
  ✔ Frames the debate through AI vs Judges vs ABC Live.
  ✔ Anchors every claim in primary sources.

The 14 Questions — ABC Live Answers with Case Law

Cluster A — Governor’s powers (Article 200)

1. Options? Under Article 200, a Governor has only four choices: assent, withhold assent, return the Bill (if it is not a Money Bill), or reserve it for the President (Kaiser-I-Hind, 2002).

2. Bound by advice? Moreover, the Governor is ordinarily bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in situations where the Constitution expressly grants discretion (Shamsher Singh, 1974; Nabam Rebia, 2016).

3. Justiciable? Courts can review the exercise of discretion for mala fides, arbitrariness, or constitutional violations (Nabam Rebia, 2016; B.P. Singhal, 2010).

4. Article 361 bar? However, Article 361 provides only personal immunity to the Governor; it does not shield the validity of his actions, which remain subject to judicial review (Rameshwar Prasad, 2006).

5. Timelines? Therefore, while courts cannot impose blanket timelines for assent, they may issue case-specific directions to prevent constitutional paralysis (Kaiser-I-Hind, 2002).

Cluster B — President’s powers (Articles 201 & 143)

6. Justiciable discretion? Like the Governor, the President’s actions under Article 201 are subject to judicial review, though taken on ministerial advice (Shamsher Singh, 1974; Kehar Singh, 1989).

7. Timelines? In addition, no universal timelines can be imposed on the President; however, exceptional delays could invite case-specific judicial intervention (Kehar Singh, 1989).

8. Must seek SC advice? Importantly, the President is not bound to seek an advisory opinion under Article 143 before acting on a reserved Bill; the provision is discretionary(In re Kerala Education Bill, 1958).

Cluster C — Timing of review & substitution of powers

9. Pre-enactment review? Courts may examine procedural irregularities before a Bill becomes law, but they cannot evaluate the Bill’s substantive contents (P.N. Kumar, 1987).

10. Art. 142 substitution? Moreover, Article 142 empowers the Court to supplement existing law but not to replace constitutional authorities such as the Governor or President (SCBA v. UOI, 1998; A.R. Antulay, 1988).

11. Law without assent? Consequently, a Bill does not become “law in force” until the Governor (or President, if applicable) has given assent (Kaiser-I-Hind, 2002; Hoechst Pharma, 1983).

Cluster D — Supreme Court’s powers & federal disputes

12. Art. 145(3)? Substantial constitutional questions must, without exception, be referred to a Bench of at least five judges (Ashoka Kumar Thakur, 2008).

13. Art. 142 override? However, Article 142 cannot be used to contravene substantive constitutional or statutory provisions; it is limited to filling procedural gaps (SCBA v. UOI, 1998; Union Carbide, 1991).

14. Art. 131 exclusivity? Finally, disputes between the Union and States are exclusively within Article 131, which bars recourse to other forums for such federal conflicts(State of Karnataka v. UOI, 1977; State of Jharkhand v. Bihar, 2015).

How These Answers Can Change India

• Faster law-making: With clarified timelines, legislatures will no longer face indefinite delays from Governors. As a result, democratic mandates can be implemented without being hindered by procedural deadlocks.

• Stronger federalism: Moreover, reaffirming that Governors must follow ministerial advice will strengthen state governments and reduce accusations of partisan misuse.

• Reduced crises: In turn, clearer constitutional guardrails will minimise recurring clashes between Raj Bhavans and elected Assemblies.

• Judicial balance: Importantly, restrictions on Article 142 will ensure that the judiciary supplements rather than supplants constitutional design.

• Federal clarity: In addition, channelling Centre–State disputes exclusively through Article 131 will avoid jurisdictional confusion and prevent forum-shopping.

• Public trust: Finally, transparent assent procedures will boost citizen confidence in governance and reinforce democratic accountability.

AI vs Judges vs ABC Live

Comparative Note: Advisory Opinions Worldwide

• India (Art. 143): Advisory, not binding, but respected (Re Delhi Laws Act, 1951; Re NJAC, 2015).

• Canada: Reference opinions are binding in practice (Quebec Secession, 1998).

• South Africa: Constitutional Court’s certification of Bills is binding.

• US & Australia: Advisory opinions are prohibited — courts only decide “cases or controversies.”

Timeline of Judicial Effort

• 13 May 2025: Presidential reference issued.

• 22 July 2025: Constitution Bench begins hearings.

• Aug–Sep 2025: More than 10 full hearing days with extensive arguments from States and the Union (Live Law coverage).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion is expected to:

• Re-anchor ministerial responsibility,

• Permit case-specific remedies,

• Reject the idea of deemed assent,

• And reinforce federal comity under Article 131.

Therefore, this reference will become a constitutional playbook for assent powers. Moreover, it will clarify the respective roles of Governors, the President, and the judiciary. In addition, it will prevent future constitutional crises, restore balance in Centre–State relations, and strengthen India’s democratic process. Ultimately, the outcome will influence not only the functioning of government but also the public’s trust in constitutional institutions.

Also, Read

Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand: Will and Title Disputes in India