Home
Indian polity
POLITY-UPSC

TN Bill Assent Crisis: The Article 143 Presidential Reference Explained

Article 143 explained with the TN Governor dispute. What triggered the Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court? Clear and simple analysis
Amith

TN Bill Assent Crisis

✅ PART 1: Normal Constitutional Rules (Before the Issue)

These are the basic, original rules in the Constitution about how a Bill becomes a law in a State and what the Governor can do.

📌 Article 200 — Governor’s Options (NORMAL CONDITION)

When a State Legislature passes a Bill, it goes to the Governor.
The Governor has only 4 options:

1️⃣ Give Assent

  • Means: “I approve.”

  • The Bill becomes Law.

2️⃣ Withhold Assent & Return Bill

  • Governor can reject the Bill but must send it back to the Legislative Assembly with comments.

  • Why return?

    • So the House can rethink or correct the Bill.

After the House passes it again:

  • Now the Governor must give assent — NO discretion left.

3️⃣ Reserve the Bill for President

  • Governor can forward the Bill to the President of India.

  • President will decide whether to approve or reject.

This is compulsory in some cases (e.g., Bill against High Court powers).

But in Withhold Assent -- Keep the Bill “Pending” (But only temporarily)

This is the controversial one.

The Constitution uses the words:

“as soon as possible”

Meaning:

  • Governor should act within a reasonable time.

  • Not meant to delay endlessly.

❌ What the Governor CANNOT do (according to normal understanding)

  • Cannot indefinitely delay the Bill.

  • Cannot block a Bill just because of political differences.

  • Cannot “sit on the Bill forever.”

But this is exactly what has been happening recently — especially in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, Telangana, etc., which created the crisis.

📌 Article 163 — Governor & Aid and Advice (Normal Condition)

Normally:

  • Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

But:

  • For certain functions (like assent to Bills, reservation of Bills), Governor has discretion.

📌 Article 201 — President’s Role

If Governor reserves a Bill for the President:

  • President can give assent OR withhold assent.

  • No timeline given.

  • No judicial review of the merits of the decision.

Summarising Normal Condition Simply

Governor has 3 real options:

✔ Approve
✔ Reject & return
✔ Send to President

❌ Not allowed:

  • Political obstruction

  • Endless delays

✅ PART 2: Tamil Nadu Governor Case — What Actually Happened?

Now let’s understand the real-life problem that forced the President to ask the Supreme Court for advice.

📌 The Tamil Nadu Governor Issue (Explained Simply)

Who was involved?

  • Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (DMK Government)

  • Governor R.N. Ravi

📌 What TN Government Accused the Governor of Doing

  1. He kept Bills pending for a long time (some for over 2 years).

  2. He did not return the Bills for reconsideration.

  3. He did not reserve them for the President.

  4. He simply sat on them without action.

This was seen as:

  • Undermining democracy

  • Blocking the will of the elected government

  • Acting beyond constitutional limits

📌 Tamil Nadu Decided to Approach Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu filed a petition saying:

  • Governor was violating Article 200

  • “As soon as possible” was being ignored

  • Governor was acting with political bias

📌 What happened next?

The Supreme Court looked at the case and said:

  • Governor CANNOT keep Bills pending endlessly.

  • Must act within “reasonable time.”

  • Delays threaten democracy and federalism.

📌 But the matter became bigger

This problem was seen in many states, not only TN:

  • Kerala

  • Punjab

  • Telangana

  • West Bengal

  • Karnataka

Governors were accused of blocking Bills passed by Opposition-ruled states.

📌 So the President stepped in

  • President Droupadi Murmu used Article 143 → Advisory Jurisdiction.

  • She asked the Supreme Court to give a clear opinion.

President Droupadi Murmu, using Article 143, asked the Supreme Court:

  • What exactly are the powers of Governors?

  • Can Governors delay Bills?

  • Can courts force timelines?

  • Is “withhold assent” allowed without returning the Bill?

👉 Why Article 143 is rare?

  • It is used only in very major constitutional disputes (like Cauvery, Ayodhya, Berubari).

👉 What this shows?

  • This issue was not small.

  • It had gone beyond Tamil Nadu or Kerala — it affected many states.

  • So India needed a final, authoritative answer from Supreme Court.

📌 Why this became a major constitutional crisis

  • Governors are appointed by the Centre.

  • State governments said Governors were being used to block state legislation.

  • This directly hit:

    • Federalism

    • Democracy

    • Separation of powers

That’s why the Supreme Court gave a big advisory opinion.

✅ 14 Questions Asked by the President (Article 143 Reference)

1️⃣ Can the Governor delay Bills indefinitely under Article 200?

→ Is “prolonged inaction” allowed?

2️⃣ Does the Governor have to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers while deciding assent?

→ Or is this a discretionary power?

3️⃣ Can courts review the Governor’s decision under Article 200?

→ Is the Governor’s discretion justiciable?

4️⃣ Does Article 361 give complete immunity to the Governor?

→ Can courts examine Governor’s inaction?

5️⃣ Can the Supreme Court fix a timeline for Governors to decide on Bills?

→ Can they say “decide within 1 month”?

6️⃣ Can courts review the President’s decision on Bills reserved under Article 201?

→ Is President’s discretion protected?

7️⃣ Can SC prescribe timelines for the President to act on Bills?

→ Same as the Governor question but for the President.

8️⃣ Can courts examine the content of a Bill before it becomes a law?

→ Judicial review of Bills vs Laws.

9️⃣ Can a Bill become law without the Governor’s explicit assent?

→ Is “deemed assent” possible?

🔟 Must judges first check if a case needs a 5-judge Bench under Article 145(3)?

→ Does every Bench need to test “substantial question of law”?

1️⃣1️⃣ How far does Article 142 extend?

→ Can SC use Article 142 to override constitutional rules like assent?

1️⃣2️⃣ Does SC have jurisdiction outside Article 131 for Union–State disputes?

→ Is Article 131 the only route?

1️⃣3️⃣ Can SC resolve legislative disputes using advisory jurisdiction?

→ Limits of Article 143.

1️⃣4️⃣ Is the April 2025 judgment (which set timelines) constitutionally valid?

→ Can timelines be imposed + is “deemed assent” constitutional?

🟦 THIS IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED.

Now let’s see…

⭐ WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? (Step-by-step narrative)

(After the President asked the 14 Questions)

✅ 1️⃣ Supreme Court formed a 5-Judge Constitution Bench

Why?
Because these questions involved:

  • Governor’s powers

  • Federalism

  • Article 200 & 201

  • Article 361 (immunity)

Such issues = Constitutional interpretation → needs 5 judges.

The Bench sat and discussed each of the 14 questions in detail.

✅ 2️⃣ SC studied all past incidents involving Governors

Especially:

  • Tamil Nadu

  • Kerala

  • Punjab

  • Telangana

  • West Bengal

These states complained that Governors were misusing delay.

✅ 3️⃣ SC said: “Indefinite delay by Governors is UNCONSTITUTIONAL”

This was the central decision in this entire judgment.

SC clearly said:

❌ Governor cannot keep Bills pending for months or years.

❌ “Sitting on Bills” violates the Constitution.

❌ All decisions must be taken as soon as possible.

This directly attacked what happened in Tamil Nadu.

✅ 4️⃣ SC overruled its own April 2025 judgment

Earlier, SC said:

  • 1 month to decide

  • 3 months for reconsidered Bills

  • “Deemed assent” if Governor delays

BUT NOW:

❌ These timelines are removed.

❌ No automatic assent (Deemed assent) allowed.

Why?
Because Constitution uses flexible language, not fixed days.

✅ 5️⃣ SC gave a NEW INTERPRETATION of Article 200

Governor’s powers are clarified as:

✔ Discretionary power

BUT

✔ Must be used constitutionally

✔ Not for politics

✔ Not for delay

✔ Must act in a reasonable time

So the Governor has power → but not to block the government.

✅ 6️⃣ SC allowed courts to review “inaction”

Courts cannot review why a Bill was rejected.
But they can review inaction.

Meaning:

✔ If Governor delays → SC/HC can order him to act

❌ But cannot force him to give assent

This is a very important balance.

✅ 7️⃣ SC clarified Article 361 immunity

Article 361 gives immunity to:

  • Governor (personally)

  • President (personally)

BUT SC said:

❌ Immunity does NOT stop judicial review of the office

Meaning:

  • Courts can examine whether the constitutional office did its duty.

So Governor is protected as a person
But his office’s inaction can be questioned.

✅ 8️⃣ SC clarified President’s powers under Article 201

  • President’s decision cannot be reviewed

  • Courts cannot ask “why did you reject?”

BUT

  • Inaction cannot be unlimited

  • Still no deadlines

  • No deeming provision

✅ 9️⃣ SC said “Courts cannot review Bills” (only laws)

Judicial review = only after the Bill becomes law.

This means:

❌ High Court/Supreme Court cannot strike down a Bill
✔ Only laws can be challenged

✅ 🔟 SC declined some questions

Some questions were too broad, like:

  • Does SC have other powers beyond Article 131?

  • Must every constitutional case go to 5 judges?

SC said these questions were not needed for deciding the Bill-assent issue.

⭐ THE FINAL IMPACT (Very Important for UPSC)

✔ Governors CANNOT delay Bills indefinitely.
✔ Courts CAN force Governors to take action.
✔ No fixed timelines for President or Governer.
✔ No automatic assent.
✔ Governor’s discretionary powers exist but limited.
✔ President’s discretion protected.
✔ Judicial review allowed only for INACTION, not MERITS.

This judgment balances both sides:

  • Protects state governments from obstruction

  • Protects the constitutional roles of Governor & President

⭐ Impact & Future Implications

🔵 1. SC’s Article 143 Advisory Opinion is Not Binding

  • Under Article 143, the Supreme Court only gives an advisory opinion, not a binding judgment.

  • This means the 5-judge Constitution Bench’s clarifications are guiding, not enforceable.

🔵 2. April 2025 Two-Judge Bench Judgment Still Stands (Important!)

  • In April 2025, a 2-judge bench had:
    ✔ Imposed 1-month timeline for assent
    ✔ Imposed 3-month timeline for reconsidered Bills
    ✔ Allowed idea of “deemed assent” if deadlines crossed

  • Since the Article 143 advisory is not binding,
    👉 the April judgment technically remains valid in law.

This creates legal tension between:

  • A binding 2-judge bench order
    vs

  • A non-binding 5-judge advisory opinion.

🔵 3. Union Government Likely to File a Review Petition

  • The Union Government is expected to file a review petition to challenge and revise the April 2025 judgment.

  • This is because:

    • The Centre opposes strict judicial timelines for Governors/President.

    • The April judgment weakens the Union’s influence through Governors.

A review petition → would reopen the case before the Supreme Court.

🔵 4. Potential for a Larger Bench (Future)

  • Because the issue involves Governor’s powers, federalism, Articles 143, 200, 201, the SC may:
    ✔ refer the matter to a 7-judge bench
    or
    ✔ create a Constitution Bench judgment with binding effect.

This will finally settle the confusion between:

  • Governor’s discretionary power
    vs

  • Judiciary’s role in stopping delays.

🔵 5. Immediate Impact on States

Especially states like:

  • Tamil Nadu

  • Kerala

  • Punjab

  • Telangana

  • West Bengal

Governors will now be under greater scrutiny.
They cannot delay Bills without giving reasons.

But because timelines are still technically alive (due to April judgment), conflict may continue.

🔵 6. Long-Term Implications

  • May lead to a new Constitution Bench ruling on Governor’s powers.

  • May redefine federal balance between Union & States.

  • Could force Parliament to consider amending the Constitution to clearly define Governor’s timelines.

  • Will likely influence future debates on cooperative federalism.

Important for UPSC

Q. Can Timelines be imposed on Governor?

👉 SC Answer: NO

Earlier in April, SC had given:

  • 1-month time

  • 3-month time

Now SC overruled that.

Reason:

  • Article 200 says “as soon as possible” → flexible

  • SC cannot convert that into strict deadlines.

Q. Can Supreme Court impose timelines on President?

👉 SC Answer: NO

  • President also cannot be given rigid deadlines for assent, same reason:
    “as soon as possible” is flexible.

Q. Referring cases to 5-Judge Bench under Article 145(3)

The question was:

  • Must every Bench FIRST check if the issue needs 5 judges?

👉 SC Answer:

  • Declined to answer.

  • Not relevant to this case.

Q. Nature of SC power under Article 142

Question:
“Can Article 142 override Constitution?”

👉 SC Answer:

  • Too broad to answer fully

Supreme Court summarised that many questions were irrelevant

The Bench said:

  • Some questions were not necessary to settle in a Presidential Reference

  • The main issues were only about Bills, assent, delays, Governor’s power, judicial review

Post a Comment