Supreme Court: Decisions Of Governor & President Under Articles 200 & 201 Not Justiciable At Stage Anterior Into Law Coming Into Force

While answering the Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court observed that the decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution respectively, are not justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force.

In exercise of powers conferred under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, the President of India on May 13, 2025 referred fourteen questions relating to interpretation of powers of the Governor under Articles 200 and 201 along with certain ancillary questions for opinion of the Court.

The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held, “The decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 respectively, are not justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force. It is impermissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law. Pertinently, discharge of its role under Article 143, does not constitute ‘judicial adjudication’.”

The Bench said that the Court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision so taken, however, in glaring circumstances of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite – the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his function under Article 200 within a reasonable time period, without making any observations on the merits of the exercise of his discretion.

Court’s Opinion

The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the Court in State of Tamil Nadu case was bound by the earlier decisions, and the discharge of function by the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 respectively is thus, non-justiciable.

“Beyond judicial precedent as well, we are unable to endorse the view advanced in State of Tamil Nadu (supra). In light of the opinion that we have tendered in the other questions above, since the Governor cannot withhold assent simpliciter, the only options he has are to initiate the dialogic process under Article 200 – either through returning the Bill to the Legislature for reconsideration or reserving it for the President’s assent, who in turn under Article 201, may choose to return the Bill with a message to the Legislature as well. The initiation of a dialogic process where other constitutional functionaries are consulted before the Governor or President takes a decision on whether the Bill must be assented to or not, is not a justiciable act in itself”, it noted.

The Court emphasised that the dialogic process is a part of the system of checks and balances, and the federal system that our Constitution envisages and the nature of the dialogic process contemplated under Articles 200 and 201 is such that it is advisory, persuasive, deliberative, mediative, and consultative.

“It stands at a markedly different position from the discharge of an adjudicatory function, or a definitive exercise of executive power – both of which are subject to judicial review. The discharge of functions under Articles 200 and 201, however, is simply the initiation of a dialogic process, which cannot be the subject of judicial review”, it added.

The Court remarked that if the reservation of a Bill, or withholding and returning it to the Legislature, is justiciable, then the grant of assent too, would necessarily have to be subject to judicial review.

“The most drastic consequence of accepting that assent, reservation or return can be challenged, is that in any of the formulations of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu (supra), it is not the enactment which will be brought for review of the Court, but the Bill which will be subjected to judicial review. In other words, to determine whether a Bill has been correctly accorded assent or not, the primary document brought before the Court’s consideration will be the text of the Bill, anterior to the stage of it becoming a law”, it observed.

The Court elucidated that the judicial review of a Bill, that is anterior to its enactment as law, is unheard of and unfathomable in our constitutional practice and history and judicial review of a legislation is premised on the fact that it will be considered by the Court, only after it has been made into law – i.e., assented by the Governor or President as the case may be, and brought into force.

“It is this judicial review over legislation that our constitutionalism envisages, and this particular form is an essential feature of our basic structure”, it further said.

Moreover, the Court said that the way we practice our constitutionalism does not allow for judicial consideration of Bills at this preliminary stage and to allow this would be to effectively supplant the role of the Legislature, and the checks and balances placed squarely within its responsibility.

“In view of the above discussion, we find no reason to deviate from the binding decisions of this Court and for the additional reasoning stated above, are of the considered view that the discharge of the Governor’s or President’s functions under Articles 200 and 201 respectively, is not justiciable”, it held.

Conclusion

The Court also noted that it is impermissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law – wherein discharge of its role under Article 143, is not ‘judicial adjudication’.

“The judgment in State of Tamil Nadu (supra) does not mandate reference under Article 143 but suggests it as a mechanism that the President can employ and must be read as so. It is clarified, however, that no such pre-requisite exists, when considering Bills reserved for the President’s assent, whose subjective satisfaction is the only requirement. This in turn, should answer Question 8 of this Presidential Reference”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court answered the Presidential Reference.

Cause Title- In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1333)

Click here to read/download the Judgment