In Supreme Court of India, answering a Presidential Reference titled In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills, the Court authoritatively clarified the constitutional scheme governing assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The Court held that when a Bill is presented to a Governor under Article 200, only three constitutional options are available: granting assent, reserving the Bill for the President’s consideration, or returning it to the legislature for reconsideration (except in the case of Money Bills). There is no independent power to indefinitely withhold assent without following these routes. Importantly, the Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising discretion under Article 200, as this discretion exists to protect constitutional and federal interests. On justiciability, the Court ruled that the merits of the Governor’s or President’s decision are generally non-justiciable. However, courts may intervene in a limited manner where there is prolonged, unexplained inaction, by directing the constitutional authority to act within a reasonable time without dictating the nature of the decision. Article 361 grants personal immunity to the Governor and President, but does not bar judicial scrutiny of constitutional validity or allegations of mala fides. Crucially, the Court rejected the idea of judicially imposed timelines for assent, holding that the Constitution consciously avoids prescribing time limits. Any such prescription would amount to constitutional amendment by judicial fiat. The Court also categorically rejected the doctrine of “deemed assent,” affirming that a Bill does not become law without express assent. Article 142 cannot be used to substitute or override constitutional functions of the Governor or President. Overall, the judgment reinforces constitutional boundaries, separation of powers, and the limited role of judicial review in the legislative process.