Daily Current Affairs for UPSC : 21 Nov 2025/16th Presidential Reference

Why in News ?The Supreme Court delivered its opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143 regarding the powers of Governors and the President to grant assent to State Bills. This came soon after the April 8 judgment that imposed a three-month limit for Governors to act on pending Bills.

Key Points of the Supreme Court Opinion:

• The Court stated that judiciary cannot prescribe a uniform timeline for Governors or the President to dispose of Bills as this violates the doctrine of separation of powers. However, it held that Governors and the President cannot adopt prolonged or evasive inaction. In cases of unjustified delay, the Court may issue a limited mandamus directing them to act within a reasonable time.
• The Court clarified that under Article 200, the Governor has only three choices: give assent, withhold assent and return the Bill (if not a Money Bill), or reserve it for the President.
• A Governor cannot stall a Bill by simply sitting on it without returning it.
• The President is not required to approach the Supreme Court under Article 143 for every Bill referred to her. Judicial review cannot examine the merits or the content of a Bill before it becomes law.
• Article 361 ensures personal immunity for Governors.

Legal and Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 200 deals with the Governor’s options regarding assent to Bills.
• Article 201 addresses the President’s power when a Bill is reserved.
• Article 143 empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion.
• Article 361 grants immunity to the President and Governors. These articles together shape the constitutional framework for handling State legislation.

Constitutional Issues Involved:

• The matter raises concerns regarding cooperative federalism because prolonged inaction by Governors impacts the functioning of elected State legislatures.
• The absence of timelines in the Constitution creates ambiguity. Unelected Governors obstructing elected legislatures raises democratic legitimacy issues.
• Courts imposing timelines could infringe on separation of powers, but endless delays also undermine the legislature’s authority.

Recent Context:

• Several States including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab and Telangana accused Governors of delaying assent to Bills for long periods or reserving Bills for the President without explanation.
• The April 8 judgment attempted to fix a three-month limit, prompting the President to seek clarity by invoking Article 143. The Presidential Reference asked whether courts can regulate timelines and whether the three-month rule is valid.

Challenges:

• The Constitution does not prescribe timelines for assent, enabling discretionary delays. The office of Governor is increasingly seen as political, leading to Centre–State tensions.
• Lack of transparency in the decision-making process further complicates matters. States face administrative paralysis when Bills remain pending. Judicial remedies remain limited because the Governor enjoys immunity.

Way Forward:

A clear statutory or constitutional timeline for assent would reduce ambiguity. Governors should record written reasons when withholding or delaying assent to uphold accountability. Centre–State dialogue mechanisms can reduce conflicts. Recommendations of the Punchhi Commission for depoliticising the Governor’s office can be implemented. Courts may intervene only when delays become unreasonable or mala fide.

Annual reporting on pending Bills can strengthen transparency.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s opinion attempts to strike a balance between constitutional principles and practical governance. It rejects rigid judicial timelines but emphasises that Governors cannot block legislation through indefinite inaction. The judgment highlights the need for institutional reforms to ensure that the Governor’s role remains neutral, accountable and supportive of democratic federalism.

About 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143:

Background:

• The President of India can seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact that are of public importance under Article 143 of the Constitution.
• In 2025, the President sought such a reference, known as the 16th Presidential Reference, to clarify the powers and functions of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201 in relation to assent to State Bills.

Purpose:

• The Reference aimed to resolve constitutional ambiguities arising after the April 8, 2025 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, where a two-judge Bench had fixed a three-month timeline for Governors and the President to act on Bills.
• Questions were raised about whether courts can impose such timelines and whether “deemed assent” can occur if a Governor or the President does not act.