1. Context

• On 20 November 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its detailed opinion on 14 constitutional questions referred by the President under Article 143 (Presidential Reference).

• The reference arose from constitutional conflicts surrounding the Tamil Nadu Governor’s prolonged inaction on several State Bills.

• Some States criticized the reference as an “appeal in disguise” against the Supreme Court’s earlier April 2025 judgment, which had introduced the concept of ‘deemed assent’.

• The Supreme Court rejected this argument and clarified the scope and nature of Presidential References.

2. Background of the Case

2.1 The April 8, 2025 SC Judgement

• A two-judge bench addressed delays by Governors/President in granting assent to Bills.

• The Court:

  • Stated that constitutional authorities must act within a reasonable time.

  • Introduced the doctrine of ‘deemed assent’ (automatic approval if no action within a reasonable time).

• Central Government did not seek review, but instead sought Presidential Reference.

2.2 Reason for the Presidential Reference

• To clarify:

  • Limits of Governor/President’s powers under Articles 200 & 201.

  • Whether the Court can prescribe a time limit.

  • Whether the doctrine of ‘deemed assent’ is constitutional.

• Some States argued this was a back-door appeal of the Tamil Nadu case, which SC rejected.

3. Meaning of a Presidential Reference (Article 143)

• The President can seek the Supreme Court’s advice on:

  • Questions of law

  • Constitutional interpretation

  • Matters of public importance

• It is an advisory jurisdiction:

  • Not binding, but carries very high persuasive value.

• Purpose: Resolve constitutional ambiguities and guide the government.

4. Key Findings of the Recent Supreme Court Opinion

4.1 Limits on Judicial Power

• Court cannot:

  • Set time limits for Governors/President.

  • Interfere with pre-enactment decisions.

  • Introduce ‘deemed assent’.

4.2 Limits on Governor/President

• Governor/President cannot remain inactive indefinitely.

• In extreme cases of inaction, Court may issue a mandamus to ensure a decision is taken.

4.3 Impact of Article 143 Advice

• Advice under Article 143 can, if necessary, influence or reshape earlier SC decisions.

4.4 Procedural Clarifications

• Governor cannot be made a party to court proceedings (Article 361).

• Decisions under Articles 200/201 are not subject to judicial review before the bill becomes law.

5. “Appeal in Disguise” Criticism

States’ Arguments

• The reference was essentially:

  • An indirect appeal against the April 2025 ruling.

  • A misuse of Article 143 instead of a review or curative petition.

Supreme Court’s Response

• Rejected the argument.

• Cited precedents:

  • 1978 Presidential Reference

  • 2G Spectrum Presidential Reference

• Held that:

  • Article 143 is a constitutional tool, not an appeal mechanism.

  • Its advice may overrule previous reasoning, but that still does not make it an appeal.

6. SC’s Answers to the 14 Questions of the Presidential Reference

Below is a clean, UPSC-ready pointwise summary:

Question 1: Constitutional options for Governor under Article 200

Answer:

• He may:

  1. Grant assent, OR

  2. Withhold assent and return the Bill (if not a Money Bill), OR

  3. Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.

Question 2: Is Governor bound by ministerial advice?

Answer:

• Governor has discretion under Article 200.

• Not fully bound by the Council of Ministers.

Question 3: Is Governor’s discretion under Article 200 justiciable?

Answer:

• Generally not justiciable.

• Exception: Court can order the Governor to take a decision (not what decision) if there is indefinite inaction.

Question 4: Does Article 361 bar judicial review of Governor’s actions?

Answer:

• Complete bar on personal judicial proceedings against Governor.

• Governor cannot be summoned or questioned personally.

Question 5: Can Court set a time limit for actions under Article 200?

Answer:

• No. Constitution is silent → Court cannot prescribe a deadline.

Question 6: Is President’s discretion under Article 201 justiciable?

Answer:

• Same principle as Governor: Not justiciable.

Question 7: Can President be bound by time limits for Article 201?

Answer:

• No. Judiciary cannot set deadlines for President.

Question 8: Must President consult SC when a Bill is reserved?

Answer:

• Not required.

• President’s subjective satisfaction is enough.

Question 9: Are decisions under Articles 200/201 justiciable before enactment?

Answer:

• No.

• Court cannot examine pre-enactment stages. Only post-enactment judicial review.

Question 10: Can Article 142 substitute constitutional powers or create ‘deemed assent’?

Answer:

• No.

• Article 142 cannot override constitutional procedures.

• ‘Deemed assent’ is unconstitutional.

Question 11: Can State laws operate without Governor’s assent?

Answer:

• Impossible.

• No law can take effect without assent under Article 200.

Question 12: Must Courts first decide whether a case needs a Constitution Bench (Art 145(3))?

Answer:

• Returned unanswered—irrelevant to the reference.

Question 13: Are SC’s powers under Article 142 limited to procedural matters?

Answer:

• No definite answer.

• Already addressed partly in Q.10.

Question 14: Does the Constitution bar SC from resolving Centre–State disputes through means other than Article 131?

Answer:

• Irrelevant to the reference → unanswered.

7. Significance of the Judgment (UPSC-Important)

7.1 Strengthening Federalism

• Clarifies boundaries of Governor/President in the lawmaking process.

• Prevents misuse of constitutional offices.

7.2 Greater Constitutional Clarity

• Offers a detailed interpretation of Articles 143, 200, 201, 361, 142.

• Removes ambiguity on:

  • Assent process

  • Pre-enactment judicial review

  • ‘Deemed assent’

7.3 Democratic Governance Strengthened

• Court condemns prolonged inaction, promoting accountability.

• Mandamus option ensures timely decisions.

7.4 Centre–State Relations

• States now know:

  • When they can seek judicial remedy.

  • What powers Governors actually have.

  • That assents cannot be delayed indefinitely.

7.5 Judicial Review Clarified

• Courts stay out of pre-legislative stages.

• Ensures proper separation of powers.

8. Why This is Important for UPSC (Prelims + Mains)

Prelims

• Articles 143, 200, 201, 361, 142

• Presidential Reference

• Powers of Governor/President

• Judicial Review limits

Mains (GS-II)

• Federalism

• Separation of Powers

• Role of Governor

• Constitutional morality

• Judicial activism vs restraint

Essay

• Cooperative federalism

• Constitutional design and functioning