INTRODUCTION  

"The President’s Reference on Assent to State Bills: A Key Constitutional Debate " The Indian government system shared powers between the central and state governments. The sharing of power is essential as it forms a key part of how state laws become actual laws. The governor of the state has an essential role, either by approving the bill or sometimes sending it to the president for consideration. The process under articles 200 and 201 of our constitution has recently led to a major argument. This disagreement became so big that the president asked the Supreme Court for its advice and Article 143 of the constitution. The president wants a clear answer about the powers, limits, and scope of approving state laws and the power of the Judicial organ. Through this article, we will explore the disagreement, rules for approving a bill, and understand the intricacies of pocket veto, examine the recent judgment of the Supreme Court and the President with Advisory Jurisdiction.  

PRESIDENT’S / GOVERNOR’S ASSENT- A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE 

India follows a parliamentary system at both the central and state levels, which does not mandate a clear separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. Therefore, to pass any bill into an act, the governor’s or the president’s assent is mandated under articles 200 and 111, respectively. This constitutional mandate empowers the head of the state with certain options.  

Article 111 mandates the President with  

1. Power to grant assent: any bill after such assent becomes an Act and is applicable to the whole of India. 
2. Return the bill for reconsideration: The governor has the power to return a bill other than a money Bill to the legislative body with a message requesting reconsideration of the bill or any specified provision for consideration of amendments. However, if the bill is passed again by the house with or without amendment however and presented to the president for assent, the bill is deemed to be passed. This is known as deemed assent. 
3. Withhold assent: Although the power of withholding his assent is not directly mandated by the constitutional provisions, this has evolved with time to abuse the power. This is known as a Pocket veto, wherein the President neither accedes to the Bill nor sends the bill to the Houses for reconsideration, but keeps the bill to himself, withholding the assent and preventing it from becoming the law.  

Article 200 empowers the Governor with the following powers, 

1. Grant assent: This is the most common and expected outcome reflecting the legislative will of the elected representatives, wherein the bill passes to become an Act and is enforceable. 
2. Return the bill for reconsideration: This power is also in line with the President’s power to send the bill back to the house for reconsideration, which, if passed again with or without amendments, is deemed to be passed. The proviso under Article 200 is crucial as it implies A constitutional obligation on the governor to ascend once the legislature reaffirms its will. 
3. Withhold assent: This power of the pocket writer of the governor is similar to that of the President under Article 111. 
4. Reserve the bill for consideration of the president: The Constitution reserves such power to governor wherein if the governor is satisfied that the bill deals with the matter of national importance, or certain provisions are inconsistent with central law or derogates from the power of the High Court, then the bill can be kept by the governor for consideration of the President. 

The underlying principle behind such power by the Constitution is the doctrine of checks and balances. The executive keeps a check on the legislature's power, allowing for scrutiny and preventing hasty or unconstitutional legislation. However, the absence of an explicit timeline for action by both the governor and the President leads to abuse of power, often by prolonged delays, which raise concerns about the frustration of legislative will and undermine the democratic process. 

POCKET VETO- FRAUD ON CONSTITUTION 

Lack of a prescribed time limit for the assent on the bill, by the suprema lex, leads to one of the most contentious issues in contemporary times, which is termed as ‘pocket veto’. It occurs when the executive authority- President or governor- sits on a bill indefinitely, neither assenting nor explicitly withholding assent. This inaction efficiently kills the bill without a formal rejection, thereby avoiding public justification or a potential override by the legislature. 

There are three types of veto with minute differences, they are: - 

1. Absolute veto: The power of the President to withhold assent to the bill is termed as his absolute veto. 
2. Suspensive veto: The power of the President to return the bill to the party with or without consideration is called a suspensive veto. 
3. Pocket veto: The power of the President could not act upon a bill is termed as pocket veto. 

This pocket veto has been exercised by the constitutional heads numerous times, such as in 1986, when the Parliament passed the ‘Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill’. This bill aimed to amend the existing ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898. It contained a controversial provision that would grant the government wide powers. The bill was sent to the then-President of India, Giani Zail Singh. instead of either giving his assent, withholding his assent, or returning the bill for reconsideration. The president simply did nothing. He neither signed the bill into law nor sent it back to Parliament. 

STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU 

Their recent case arose from a prolonged constitutional tussle between the elected government of Tamil Nadu and its Governor, R.N. Ravi, with respect to the assent to bills passed by the state legislature. The Governor, appointed by the President, appointed by the constitutional mandates, found himself in a political tussle with the state government, particularly as the ruling party in Tamil Nadu is not aligned with the party in power at the Centre. The main issue with the present case lies with the Governor's insignificant and unduly long delay in acting upon more than 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, The state government contended that this inaction was frustrating the legislative process and undermining the state's autonomy. 

These bills pertained to the essential matter, including those seeking to transfer the power of appointing the vice chancellor for state universities from the governor to the state government. Other bills related to various administrative and policy matters. However, no timely action was taken to assent to the bills.  

After the Supreme Court heard the matter and expressed ‘serious concern’ in 2023, the Governor formally ‘withheld assent’ to the bills and returned them to the assembly for reconsideration, but without an accompanying message for such non-assent, which is mandated under the proviso of Article 200. After passing the bills by the legislative assembly without any amendments, the bill ought to be passed by the executive head. However, that was not the case; the Governor withheld the assent on ‘reservation of bill for President’s reference’ and did not grant assent to all 10 bills. 

The Supreme Court again decided the matter and held that the governor's actions were not only deliberately obstructive but also violated constitutional procedure. The court said that the governor lacked bona fide in his action and failed to respect the constitution and authority of the court. It is not up to the governor to reserve the bill for the president after the Assembly has passed the legislation for the second time without any changes. This is determined by the phrase ‘shall not withhold assent’ from the constitution. 

The Supreme Court laid down the time-bound guidelines for the governor under Article 200. 

1. The Governor has to assent or reserve the bill as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers within one month. 
2. If the Governor is withholding the assent as against the Council of Ministers' advice, he has to return the bill with the message within three months. 
3. The reservation of the Bill, against the advice of the Council of Ministers, must be within three months. 
4. Post reconsideration, assent must be given within one month. 

POWER OF PRESIDENT’S REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 143 

Following the Supreme Court's judgment in the state of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, President Dropati Murmur without referring to the judgement, sought the Court's advisory opinion under Article 143 on 14 specific questions related to the scope of the President and Governor's power to ascend to Bill placed by state legislature. These advices of the court are not binding; however, they have great persuasive value, and to date there has been no reported instance of them being flouted or openly disobeyed.  

Courts are not obliged to review the judgment while answering references, but it could be used as a tool to tune the judgment. Therefore, the court may agree to revise the timeline it stipulated for the governor and president to grant assent to bills, but it is unlikely to entirely abandon the timeline direction. 

In the present case, the President's reference directly questions the constitutional basis for the judiciary to impose such timelines when Articles 200 and 201 are silent on this matter. While it is the duty of courts to do complete justice under Article 142 and prevent a constitutional breakdown, fill in the lacunae of the legislation, and ensure that constitutional functionaries act within a ‘reasonable time’. The executive deemed such intervention as judicial overreach into the executive domain. 

The reference seeks clarity on the scope of the Supreme Court's inherent power under Article 142, especially when the Constitution or the existing legislation already provides A framework for an action. The president's concern is whether 142 can be used to effectively create a new constitutional provision or override established procedures. 

Additionally, the reference also seeks clarification on whether the decision of the Governor and the President regarding assent or withholding assent is enforceable at the stage of being a bill that is before them, being an act. 

Such a presidential reference marks a formal constitutional dialogue between the executive and the judiciary on fundamental questions, wherein the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion will provide a much-needed clarity on the ambiguous aspects.  

CONCLUSION 

The president's recent advice from the Supreme Court on the bills is an essential step for India's constitution; it reflects how different parts of the government, including the executive, are involved. Pretty shoddy work together, sometimes with a bit of tension to understand and uphold our fundamental laws. When the Supreme Court gives its opinion, it will help make things much clearer about certain parts of the Constitution, especially Articles 200 and 201. These articles deal with how long governors and presidents can take to approve state laws. Getting this clarity should help reduce disagreements between the central government and the states, making the lawmaking process smoother. This discussion also makes us ponder how much power the Supreme Court has to step in when the Constitution does not give clear instructions. It will help define what judicial activism means. This important conversation aims to strengthen our democratic system. Ensuring that the laws passed by the people's representatives are handled efficiently and fairly, always sticking to the core principles of the Constitution. 

REFERENCES 

1. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Apr/14/explainer-supreme-court-landmark-ruling-on-governor-vs-state 
2. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/what-is-a-presidential-reference-explained/article69591439.ece 
3. Constitution of India. 
4. https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/what-is-presidents-assent/ 

AUTHOR: KAVYA GUPTA