The Supreme Court's advisory opinion on the presidential reference under Article 143 on the role of governors makes for interesting reading. The Court definitively answered eleven of the fourteen questions. This reference was necessitated as a consequence of the Court's verdict in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu in April 2025, when the Court held that the governor can exercise discretion only in respect of the reservation of a bill for the president's consideration. The Court asserted that the governor's actions, under Article 200, are subject to judicial review. Most controversially, the Court invoked its power under Article 142 to render 'complete justice' and directed that the pending bills be deemed to have become the laws without the formal assent of the governor.

It is probably the extreme action of the Court of declaring that the pending bills are deemed to have been assented to by the governor that provoked the presidential reference under Article 143. In the constitutional scheme, a bill approved by the legislature becomes the law only after the assent of the governor as head of state, as he is an integral part of the state legislature. It is axiomatic that a law cannot be enacted without the assent of the Head of State; otherwise, we have a state of anarchy.

The Court, in its advice to the President, now confirmed that the governor has only three options of assenting, reserving for the consideration of the President, or returning the bill to the legislature with comments, and there........

© Free Press Journal