CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — ARTICLE 200 — GOVERNOR’S OPTIONS — SCOPE AND CONTENT OF LEGISLATIVE ROLE — DISCRETION — NATURE OF FUNCTIONS — FEDERAL SCHEME (a) Art. 200 — Three constitutional options — Nature of “withhold” — First proviso — Scope. Held: Under Article 200, the Governor has three options only: (i) grant assent; (ii) reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President; (iii) withhold assent and return the Bill with a message (only for non-Money Bills). The first proviso restricts “withholding” to withhold + return, and does not create a fourth option. (Paras 165.1) (b) Discretion of the Governor — Extent and sources of discretion — Constitutional context. Held: The Governor enjoys discretion in choosing among the three options and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising functions under Art. 200. Discretion arises: (i) where explicitly provided (e.g., second proviso); (ii) where required by necessary implication from constitutional context; (iii) where constitutionalism, federal practice and obligations demand its exercise. (Paras 81–87, 165.2) (c) Second proviso to Art. 200 — Not the sole instance of discretion — Samsher Singh (7-Judge) — Tamil Nadu case overruled. Held: The view in State of Tamil Nadu (2024) that Samsher Singh held the second proviso as the only instance of discretion is erroneous. Majority in Nabam Rebia, MP Special Police Est., and the text of multiple Articles requiring reservation (31A proviso, 31C proviso, 254(2), 288(2), 360) demonstrate that discretion exists beyond the second proviso. (Paras 75–90, 165.2)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — ARTICLE 200 — GOVERNOR’S OPTIONS — SCOPE AND CONTENT OF LEGISLATIVE ROLE — DISCRETION — NATURE OF FUNCTIONS — FEDERAL SCHEME

(a) Art. 200 — Three constitutional options — Nature of “withhold” — First proviso — Scope.
Held: Under Article 200, the Governor has three options only:
(i) grant assent;
(ii) reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President;
(iii) withhold assent and return the Bill with a message (only for non-Money Bills).
The first proviso restricts “withholding” to withhold + return, and does not create a fourth option. (Paras 165.1)

(b) Discretion of the Governor — Extent and sources of discretion — Constitutional context.
Held: The Governor enjoys discretion in choosing among the three options and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising functions under Art. 200. Discretion arises:
(i) where explicitly provided (e.g., second proviso);
(ii) where required by necessary implication from constitutional context;
(iii) where constitutionalism, federal practice and obligations demand its exercise. (Paras 81–87, 165.2)

(c) Second proviso to Art. 200 — Not the sole instance of discretion — Samsher Singh (7-Judge) — Tamil Nadu case overruled.
Held: The view in State of Tamil Nadu (2024) that Samsher Singh held the second proviso as the only instance of discretion is erroneous. Majority in Nabam Rebia, MP Special Police Est., and the text of multiple Articles requiring reservation (31A proviso, 31C proviso, 254(2), 288(2), 360) demonstrate that discretion exists beyond the second proviso. (Paras 75–90, 165.2)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — ARTICLE 200 — RETURN OF BILL AFTER RECONSIDERATION — GOVERNOR’S OPTIONS SECOND TIME

Held: After the Legislature reconsiders a Bill under the first proviso, the Governor retains two options:
(i) assent, or
(ii) reserve for the President.
The first proviso curtails only the option to “withhold”, not the option to reserve. (Paras 98–102)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — ARTICLES 200 & 201 — PRESCRIBED TIMELINES — WHETHER COURT CAN FIX TIME LIMITS — IMPLIED LIMITS — CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN

Held:
(i) Constitution does not prescribe time limits upon the Governor/President for action under Arts. 200/201 except the six-month limit imposed on the Legislature (Art. 201 proviso).
(ii) Timelines judicially crafted in State of Tamil Nadu (2024) are erroneous.
(iii) “As soon as possible” in first proviso to Art. 200 cannot be used to impose external timelines on other options.
(iv) Constitution deliberately preserves elasticity; judicial insertion of timelines would contradict this design. (Paras 104–116, 165.5)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — ARTICLES 200 & 201 — ‘DEEMED ASSENT’ — PROHIBITED — ARTICLE 142 CANNOT SUBSTITUTE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION

Held:
(i) Deemed assent is impermissible; Arts. 200/201 contain no deeming provision.
(ii) Judicial creation of deemed assent via Art.142 amounts to substitution of constitutional functionaries, violating separation of powers.
(iii) Art.142 cannot supplant constitutional text or assume the functions of Governor or President.
(iv) State of Tamil Nadu (2024) insofar as it used Art.142 to deem assent is incorrect. (Paras 117–128, 165.10)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — ARTICLES 200 & 201 — JUSTICIABILITY — WHETHER COURTS MAY REVIEW GOVERNOR’S PRESIDENT’S DECISIONS AT PRE-ENACTMENT STAGE

Held:
(i) The decisions of Governor under Art. 200 and President under Art. 201 are not justiciable at a stage anterior to the Bill becoming law.
(ii) Bills cannot be brought to Court for merits-review; only enacted law is subject to judicial review under Arts. 13, 245, 246.
(iii) Judicial review of a Bill (as opposed to an Act) is unfathomable in Indian constitutional practice except through Art. 143 advisory jurisdiction.
(iv) Earlier binding decisions — Kameshwar Singh, Hoechst, Bharat Sevashram Sangh, Kaiser-i-Hind, B.K. Pavitra — correctly held assent non-justiciable; State of Tamil Nadu (2024) erred in departing from them. (Paras 129–151, 165.3, 165.6, 165.7, 165.9)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — ARTICLE 361 — PERSONAL IMMUNITY OF GOVERNOR — WHETHER BAR TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF INACTION UNDER ART.200

Held:
(i) Art.361 grants complete personal immunity; Governor is not answerable to any court.
(ii) However, the constitutional office of Governor is subject to limited judicial review to prevent prolonged, unexplained, indefinite inaction.
(iii) Court cannot require Governor to file affidavits; but Government must defend the action if mala fides or inaction is alleged.
(iv) Rameshwar Prasad (2006) affirmed: immunity does not bar judicial scrutiny of validity of action; only personal answerability is barred. (Paras 160–165.4)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — ARTICLES 200 & 201 — INACTION — LIMITED JUDICIAL REMEDY — FORM OF RELIEF

Held:
(i) Courts cannot direct which option Governor should exercise.
(ii) Courts can issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to “act under Article 200 within a reasonable time”.
(iii) Such direction depends on context: complexity of Bill, emergent nature, federal concerns, extent of consultation.
(iv) Purpose is to prevent constitutional paralysis, not substitute discretion. (Paras 153–159)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — ARTICLE 201 — PRESIDENT’S ASSENT — NATURE — SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION — NO DUTY TO INVOKE ARTICLE 143

Held:
(i) President’s function under Art.201 is not justiciable and is based on subjective satisfaction.
(ii) No obligation on President to seek Supreme Court’s opinion under Art.143 whenever a Bill is reserved.
(iii) Reference under Art.143 is optional, available when constitutional clarity is required. (Paras 150–152; 165.6, 165.7, 165.8)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — FEDERALISM — CHECKS AND BALANCES — RESERVATION OF BILLS — PRESIDENT’S ROLE

Held:
Reservation of Bills under multiple Articles (31A proviso, 31C proviso, 254(2), 288(2), 360) manifests a deliberate federal check:
(i) Governor is constitutionally obliged to reserve such Bills;
(ii) Without reservation, President cannot exercise constitutional duty to “protect and defend” Constitution;
(iii) Absence of Governor’s discretion would frustrate entire federal mechanism of Presidential assent. (Paras 83–90)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — SEPARATION OF POWERS — JUDICIAL RESTRAINT — LIMITS ON INTERFERENCE WITH LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

Held:
(i) Legislative process must run its full constitutional course; courts cannot enter midway.
(ii) Judicial review lies only over enacted law, not over Bills in deliberation.
(iii) Overreach into legislative procedure prior to assent violates separation of powers. (Paras 139–148)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — ARTICLE 143 — ADVISORY JURISDICTION — NATURE — NOT JUDICIAL ADJUDICATION

Held:
Advisory jurisdiction is not judicial adjudication; permissible only when invoked by the President; cannot be used to bypass constitutional limits on justiciability of Bills. (Paras 149–152, 165.9)