In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India vs .

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1950

B. R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, VIKRAM NATH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Respondent(s)/Applicant(s):Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Madhav Singhal, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mili Joy Baxi, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Ameyvikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anandh Venkataramani, Adv. Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Oorasvi Goswami, Adv. Ms. Yamika Khanna, Adv. Ms. Anjali Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Rishti Vimadalal, Adv. Mr. Devraj Singh, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General Ms. Samapika Biswal, AOR Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Soumya Sannidhanam, Adv. Ms. Mehak Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shailja Singh, Adv. Mr. Ruturaj Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Sukanya Das, Adv. Ms. Visakha Raghuram, Adv. Mr. Somkeerti V Singhdeo, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Ms. Ritika Khatri, Adv. Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv. Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv. Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Mr. Shivkumar, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Singh, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Ms. Ritika Khera, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv. Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Kartikey Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Chimni, Adv. Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Diwedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. P Wilson, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Apoorv Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Seem, Adv. Mr. Uday Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Sabir, Adv. Mr. Deepak Jian, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Krishna, Adv. Mr. Raktim Gogai, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Singh, Adv. Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Shubham Kothari, Adv. Mr. Shubham P. Chopra, Adv. Mr. Aiyushi Daga, Adv. Mr. Preetika Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. B Aravind, Adv. Mr. Aditya Ojha, Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pv Surenderanath, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Mr. Sidhant Kohli, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Sawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil, Adv. Gen./Sikkim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Ms. Yachna Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Samarth Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Karl P Rustomkhan, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Dutta Shrimali, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee,ASG Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani,Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Datar,Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Sharma, Adv. Mr. S Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Mr. Vineet George, Adv. Ms. Akhila, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Salar Aatif, Adv. Mr. Pradyuman Kaistha, Adv. Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate General Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ira S. Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Varad Kohle, Adv. Mr. Saumitra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Udit Sidhra, Adv. Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Ms. Karishma Malani, A.A.G. Ms. Kirti, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Ms. Makrand Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditi Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Sindhoora Vnl, Adv. Mr. Vikas C Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ashwin K, Adv. Mr. Vishesh Goyal, Adv. Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Asthana, Adv. Ms. Sonali Gaur, Adv. Mr. Rangasaran Mohan, Adv. Mr. Amarpal Singh Dua, Adv. Mr. Milind Rai, Adv. Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv. Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv. Ms. Saubhagya Sundriyal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Advocate General/Meghalaya Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Shankar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Luv Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aarushi Malik, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Sehrawat, Adv. Ms. Apoorva, Adv. Mr. K N Balgopal, Adv. General/Nagaland, Sr. Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Vitso Rio, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, A.A.G. Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Ms. Sanya Kaushal, Adv. Ms. Riya Sagar, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Kartik Dey, Adv. Mr. Lenin Singh Hijam, Adv. Gen, Sr, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR Mr. Rishesh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Yaduven, Adv. Mr. Anandh Venkataramani, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Deboshree Mukherjee, Adv. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Raman Yadav, Adv. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Oorjasvi Goswami, Adv. Yamika Khanna, Adv. Anjali Agrawal, Adv. Rishit Vimadalal, Adv. Devvrat Singh, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Praphulla Kumar Bharat, Advocate General Mr. Apoorv Kurup, A.A.G. Mr. B.s Rajesh Agrajit, D.A.G. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Adv. Mr. Yimyanger Longkumar, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Virendra Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv. Mr. Anup Kumar Rattan, Advocate General Mr. Arman Roop Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shimpy Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Aman Khan Afghani, Adv. Ms. Priya Pachouri, Adv. Mr. Nishkarsh Pharswal, Adv. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR Ms. Avani Bansal, Adv. Ms. Parika Singh, Adv. Mr. Suva Batabyal, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Sayyed Gulerana Shabbir Ali, Adv. Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Misra, Adv. Mr. Naman Shrestra, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv. Mrs. Anjale Kumari, Adv. Ms. Pooja Shipkar, Adv. Mr. Madhav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thaldur, Adv. Mr. Nishant Verma, Adv. Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sneh Vardhan, Adv. Mr. Chhail Bihari Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Niraj, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv. Mrs. Kanika, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rahul G Tanwani, Adv. Mr. Anantha Narayana M.g., AOR Mr. V.C. Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Sindoora Vnl, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Sr. Adv. Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anantha Nrayana M.G., Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Sr. Adv. Dr. suvidutt M.S., Adv. Ms. Deepika Singh, Adv. Ms. Disha Puri, Adv. Mr. P. Wilson,Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Sr. Adv. Mr. Richardson Wilson, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Krishna, Adv. Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Ojha, Adv. Mr. Aravind, Adv. Mr. Saran Raghunandhan, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. Mr. Varun K. Chopra, Adv. For M/s. VKC Law Offices Mr. Sudiep Shrivastavba, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, Adv. Mr. Abhay Nair, Adv. Mr. P. Rohit Ram, Adv. Mr. Sanyam Jain, Adv. Mr. Pratik R. Bombarde, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, Adv. Ms. Kirti Anand, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal,Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhavi,Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashikiran Shetty,A.G. Mr. Prateek K. Chadha,AAG Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan,AAG Mr. Nishant Patil,AAG Mr. Aman Panwar,AAG Mr. Avishkar Singhvi,AAG Ms. Tarannum Cheema,AAG Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR Mrs. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Gauri Subramanium, Adv. Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv. Mr. Pavan Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Jaivardhan Singh, Adv. Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Ms. Sumedha Ray Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Adoorya Harish, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Yechuri, Adv. Mr. Aniket Chauhaan, Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points can be summarized as follows:

Constitutional Framework and Options of the Governor: The Governor has three constitutional options when a bill is presented: to give assent, to reserve the bill for the President's consideration, or to withhold assent and return the bill with comments. The first proviso to Article 200 limits the full exercise of the "withhold" option to a return with comments, except in the case of Money Bills. The options are independent of the manner of exercise, and the existence of these options reflects the constitutional design emphasizing dialogue and federal balance (!) (!) (!) .
Discretion and Aid & Advice: The exercise of the Governor’s powers under Article 200 is generally discretionary and not bound by aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific circumstances. The constitutional structure and historical context support the view that the Governor can act in his discretion, especially in cases involving the protection of constitutional principles or in situations of inaction or constitutional crisis (!) (!) (!) .
Judicial Review and Justiciability: The discharge of functions under Articles 200 and 201 by the Governor and President, respectively, is not justiciable in the ordinary sense. Judicial intervention is limited to cases of prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction. Courts are not authorized to review the merits of the decisions or to undertake adjudication over the contents of Bills before they become law. The scope of judicial review is confined to ensuring procedural compliance and preventing inaction, not to evaluating substantive decisions (!) (!) (!) .
Article 361 and Immunity: Article 361 grants absolute personal immunity to the President and Governor from answerability in courts for acts performed in their official capacity. However, this immunity does not extend to the examination of the validity of their actions, especially on grounds such as mala fides. While personal immunity is complete, the constitutional office remains subject to judicial review regarding procedural legality and constitutional compliance (!) (!) .
Timelines and Deemed Assent: The Constitution does not prescribe strict timelines for the exercise of powers under Articles 200 and 201. The phrase "as soon as possible" indicates a requirement for expedition but does not impose rigid time limits. Judicially prescribed timelines or deadlines cannot be equated with deemed assent, as this would amount to substituting the constitutional decision-making process with judicial fiat, which is impermissible. Any timelines introduced by courts are only tools for judicial review and do not alter the constitutional procedure (!) (!) (!) .
Role of Judicial Review in Cases of Inaction: In cases of prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction by the Governor or President, courts may exercise limited judicial review by issuing directions to prompt action within a reasonable time. Such intervention is meant to uphold constitutional accountability and the functioning of democratic institutions, not to substitute or evaluate the substantive merits of the decisions (!) (!) .
Relationship between Constitutional Offices and Judicial Oversight: While the personal immunity under Article 361 shields the Governor and President from answerability for acts in their official capacity, it does not prohibit courts from examining procedural correctness or constitutional validity. The immunity is limited to answerability, not to the validity of actions, which can be scrutinized on grounds of mala fides or procedural irregularities (!) (!) .
Specific Provisions and Federal Balance: The constitutional provisions concerning the reservation of Bills for the President or the exercise of powers in special circumstances (such as natural resources, ports, or emergencies) are designed to maintain the federal structure while allowing necessary executive discretion. These provisions are to be interpreted within the broader context of federalism, cooperation, and constitutional balance, emphasizing dialogue and institutional harmony (!) (!) (!) .
Nature of the Court’s Advisory Role: The Court's role in interpreting Articles 200 and 201 is confined to clarifying constitutional principles and ensuring procedural compliance. It cannot undertake merits review of the substantive decisions or substitute its judgment for that of the constitutional authorities. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to procedural and constitutional validation, not to the merits of legislative or executive decisions before enactment (!) (!) (!) .
Conclusion: The Court affirms that the discharge of functions under Articles 200 and 201 by the Governor and President, respectively, is not justiciable in the sense of merits review. Judicial intervention is permissible only in cases of prolonged, unexplained inaction, through limited directions to ensure constitutional and procedural compliance. The constitutional scheme emphasizes dialogue, federal balance, and institutional responsibility, and courts are not authorized to substitute or evaluate the substantive exercise of discretion by constitutional functionaries.

Table of Content
1. final conclusions on the governor and president's powers. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 37)
2. procedures for addressing presidential references. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. arguments on the maintainability of the reference. (Para 7 , 8)
4. observations on previous references and judicial role. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. judicial discretion and refusal to answer specific questions. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
6. importance of constitutional interpretation in reference. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39)
7. options available to the governor under article 200. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
8. federalism is a crucial aspect of constitutional interpretation. (Para 56)
9. court's comprehensive opinion on the presidential reference. (Para 165)

OPINION OF THE COURT

1. For clarity and coherent exposition of the issues under consideration, the opinion of the Court on the Presidential Reference is set out in the following parts:

Table of Contents
I.	Presidential Reference No. 1 of 2025
II.	Proceedings Before This Court
III.	Preliminary submissions on the maintainability
	A. Significance of this Refe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

B. R. Kapur VS State Of T. N. - 2001 7 Supreme 1: Describes a specific holding on disqualification of convicted persons from Chief Minister position under Article 164, with prospective validation of acts; no negative treatment indicated.

B. K Pavitra VS Union of India - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 569: Affirms validity of Reservation Act 2018 under Article 16(4A) and discusses curative legislation; presented as authoritative on multiple constitutional points.

Re : {Under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India} VS . - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 671: Establishes principle that auctions are not the only method for natural resource disposal but prohibits dissipation as largess; no criticism or override noted.

IN RE: ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTION VS . - 2023 8 Supreme 526: Upholds abrogation of Article 370 and addresses federal structure; treated as binding on key constitutional changes.

Shilpa Sailesh VS Varun Sreenivasan - 2023 3 Supreme 257: Affirms Supreme Court's power under Article 142 to dissolve marriages for irretrievable breakdown; no negative indicators.

KEISHAM MEGHACHANDRA SINGH VS HON’BLE SPEAKER MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - 2020 1 Supreme 491: Declares Speaker's disqualification decisions amenable to judicial review and suggests constitutional amendment; no invalidation.

NABAM REBIA, AND BAMANG FELIX VS DEPUTY SPEAKER - 2016 5 Supreme 227: Limits Governor's role and states Deputy Speaker cannot set aside Speaker's Tenth Schedule decision; presented as settled law.

Itc LTD. VS Agricultural Produce Market Committee - 2002 1 Supreme 258: Holds state market fee legislations valid and prevailing over Tobacco Board Act; no adverse treatment.

Kuldip Nayar VS Union of India - 2006 7 Supreme 44: Upholds 2003 amendment to Representation of People Act deleting domicile requirement; affirmed as constitutional.

M. P. Special Police Establishment VS State Of M. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(SC) 1020: Establishes Governor's discretionary power to grant sanction if ministerial advice is irrational; no override.

Supreme Court Bar Association VS Union Of India - 1998 4 Supreme 251: Limits Supreme Court's contempt power under Articles 129/142 to not include summary debarment of advocates; key point on scope of power.

Government of NCT of Delhi VS Union of India - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 699: Elaborates on constitutional morality, federalism, and NCT Delhi governance under Article 239AA; extensive affirmative principles.

Bhim Singh VS Union of India - 2010 4 Supreme 263: Advocates widest interpretation of Constitution and limits on striking down laws; principles for judicial review.

Kaiser-i-hind Private LTD. VS National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) LTD. - 2002 6 Supreme 608: Limits President's consideration/assent under Article 254(2) to state proposals; clear holding.

Centre for Public Interest Litigation VS Union of India - 2012 1 Supreme 513: Mandates rational methods (e.g., auctions) for natural resource distribution per equality/public trust; builds on constitutional duties.

A. G. Perarivalan VS State, through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT/MMDA, Chennai - 2022 5 Supreme 347: Holds Governor bound by cabinet advice on sentence commutation under Article 161; standard executive role affirmed.

Rameshwar Prasad VS Union of India - 2006 1 Supreme 393: Holds Bihar Assembly dissolution unconstitutional and limits Governor's refusal of majority claims; suggests tension with Governor discretion cases but not explicitly overruled.

IN RE: ASSENT WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10020: Fragmented text on Governor/President bill assent under Article 200; lacks full context or treatment indicators (e.g., "p class="sub_para" appears as formatting error); treatment unclear.

State Of Telangana VS Secretary To Her Excellency The Hon’ble Governor For The State Of Telangana - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1277: Discusses "as soon as possible" in Article 200; abstract constitutional significance without explicit holding or treatment signals.

State of Punjab VS Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1247: Reiterates Governor must act "as soon as possible" on bills and Speaker can reconvene; overlaps with Article 200 themes but no direct treatment language.

State of Tamil Nadu VS Governor of Tamilnadu - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 626: States Governor's Article 200 powers bound by advice, subject to review for delays; consistent with patterns but no explicit affirmation/criticism.

In Re: The Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 VS . - 2016 8 Supreme 153: Declares Punjab Act invalid and limits legislative nullification of judgments; strong holding but no subsequent treatment noted in text.

2025 Supreme(SC) 1950

B. R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, VIKRAM NATH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKARIn Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India – AppellantVersus. – Respondent

Cases Referred (39)

Judicial Analysis

Related Judgments

Samcar Glass Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Exicse, Jaipur

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

B. R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, VIKRAM NATH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent