Source: Indian Express 

Why in News? 

Recently, President Droupadi Murmu, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in case, where the Court set a deadline for powers under Article 200 Constitution of India,1950 (COI) has asked the Supreme Court for guidance under Article 143(1) of the Constitution regarding the time limits for the President and Governors to approve state bills. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025). 

What was the Background of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) ? 

• The dispute emerged after RN Ravi's appointment as Tamil Nadu Governor in September 2021, when tensions arose between the DMK-led state government and the Governor over the handling of legislative Bills.  
• The Tamil Nadu government observed a pattern where Governor Ravi was consistently withholding assent on multiple Bills, with some pending since January 2023, leading to significant legislative delays.  
• In November 2023, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Governor's actions and seeking clarity on the constitutional boundaries of gubernatorial powers under Article 200.  
• During the initial hearing on 6th November 2023, the Supreme Court made a significant observation, stating that "Governors cannot be oblivious to the fact that they are not elected representatives of the people."  
• Following this development, the Tamil Nadu Assembly took proactive steps by re-enacting the pending Bills that had been stalled by the Governor.  
• However, Governor Ravi responded by referring two of these re-enacted Bills to the President for consideration and continued to withhold assent for the remaining Bills, further escalating the constitutional crisis.  
• The case gained broader significance as other opposition-ruled states including Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab filed similar petitions, stating a pattern of gubernatorial delays in legislative processes across multiple states.  
• This constitutional dispute has now become a precedent-setting case that will determine the scope of the Governor's powers, particularly regarding timeframes for assent and the limits of their authority to withhold or reserve Bills. 

What is Article 200 and 143 of COI? 

Article 200 of COI 

• Article 200 of the COI establishes the procedure for gubernatorial assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, with the following key legal provisions: 
• The Governor, upon presentation of a Bill passed by the State Legislature, must exercise one of three constitutional options:  
  • Grant assent to the Bill 
  • Withhold assent from the Bill 
  • Reserve the Bill for Presidential consideration 
• The Governor possesses a qualified power to return non-Money Bills to the Legislature with recommendations for reconsideration, subject to the following conditions:  
  • Such return must occur "as soon as possible" after the Bill's presentation 
  • The return must be accompanied by specific recommendations or suggested amendments 
  • This power is explicitly excluded for Money Bills 
• The Legislature retains ultimate authority through the reconsideration process, as:  
  • The Legislature must reconsider the Bill along with the Governor's recommendations 
  • The Legislature may accept or reject the Governor's suggestions 
  • If the Legislature repasses the Bill (with or without amendments), the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent 
• The Governor has a mandatory duty to reserve certain Bills for Presidential consideration, specifically:  
  • Any Bill which, in the Governor's opinion, would derogate from the High Court's powers 
  • Any Bill that might endanger the constitutionally designed position of the High Court 

Article 143 of COI 

• Article 143 establishes the President's power to seek advisory opinions from the Supreme Court: 
• The President may refer questions to the Supreme Court under two circumstances:  
  • Under Article 143(1): When a question of law or fact has arisen or is likely to arise that is of such nature and public importance that obtaining the Supreme Court's opinion is expedient 
  • Under Article 143(2): For disputes mentioned in the proviso to Article 131, notwithstanding anything contained therein 
• The Supreme Court's role in such references is:  
  • To consider the question after appropriate hearings 
  • To report its opinion to the President on the matters referred 
• The nature of this power is advisory rather than adjudicatory, creating a constitutional mechanism for obtaining judicial input on significant legal questions without the constraints of regular litigation. 

Article 201 of COI 

• Article 201 of the COI governs the procedure for Bills reserved by a Governor for Presidential consideration, establishing the following key legal provisions: 
• Presidential Options on Reserved Bills:  
  • When a Bill is reserved by a Governor for Presidential consideration, the President must exercise one of two constitutional options:  
    • Grant assent to the Bill 
    • Withhold assent from the Bill 
• Presidential Power to Direct Return for Reconsideration:  
  • For non-Money Bills, the President possesses a qualified power to direct the Governor to return the Bill to the state legislature 
  • This return must be accompanied by a message similar to that mentioned in the first proviso to Article 200, potentially including recommendations or suggested amendments 
• Time-Bound Legislative Reconsideration Process:  
  • Upon return of a Bill by Presidential direction, the state legislature must reconsider it within a constitutionally mandated period of six months from receipt of the Presidential message 
  • This six-month timeframe creates a specific constitutional limitation not present in the Governor's return power under Article 200 
• Legislative Authority After Reconsideration:  
  • The state legislature may repass the Bill with or without incorporating the recommended amendments 
  • After reconsideration and repassage, the Bill must be presented again to the President 
• Final Presidential Determination:  
  • Unlike the Governor under Article 200, the President retains the authority to withhold assent even after legislative reconsideration 
  • This creates an ultimate check on state legislation that has been specifically reserved for Presidential consideration 
• Constitutional Distinction Between Money and Non-Money Bills:  
  • The presidential power to direct return applies explicitly to non-Money Bills, creating a separate procedural track for financial legislation 
  • This article provides an additional constitutional layer of executive review within India's federal system, allowing Presidential scrutiny of certain state legislation while still respecting the deliberative authority of state legislatures. 

Landmark Cases   

Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker (2016)   

• In this significant case, Justice Madan Lokur, writing a separate concurring opinion as part of a five-judge Constitution Bench, established a crucial principle regarding gubernatorial powers.  
• The Court explicitly ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills, establishing a clear limitation on gubernatorial discretion.  
• The judgment mandated that Governors must return Bills to the Assembly with specific messages or recommendations if they have concerns, rather than keeping them pending indefinitely.  

The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Anr. (2023):  

• The case arose when the Punjab Governor refused to summon the Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session and subsequently took no action on four passed Bills, leading the State to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32.  
• The Supreme Court bench, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, observed that the Governor's power to withhold assent under Article 200 must be read in conjunction with the obligation to return the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration.  
• The Court firmly established that the Governor, being an unelected head, cannot use constitutional powers to obstruct the normal legislative process, and must either grant assent or return the Bill with recommendations rather than keeping it pending indefinitely.  
• This judgment observed and built upon the principles established in the Nabam Rebia case, creating a stronger framework for gubernatorial accountability in the legislative process