Courts cannot fix deadlines for Guv, Prez on assent to Bills, says SC

Experts say ruling 'reaffirms federal balance'

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday held that courts cannot prescribe timelines for governors or the President of India to act on Bills sent to them under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

 

"We have no hesitation in concluding that deemed consent of the governor or the President under Article 200 or 201 at the expiry of a judicially set timeline is virtually a takeover, and substitution, of the executive functions by the Judiciary through judicial pronouncement, which is impermissible within the contours of our written Constitution," the apex court held.

 

The opinion came in response to a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143, seeking clarity on the constitutional framework governing assent, withholding, and reservation of Bills.

 

The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar ruled that introducing court-mandated deadlines or recognising “deemed assent” would violate the separation of powers. The judges held that treating assent as automatically granted after a judicially fixed period would amount to replacing the constitutionally assigned role of the governor or the President with the judiciary’s direction.

 

While rejecting “deemed assent”, the top court added that it may intervene in narrow circumstances where there is prolonged, unexplained inaction by a governor. In such cases, the court can direct the governor to take a decision, but cannot dictate what that decision should be.

 

The apex court’s opinion came against the backdrop of the ruling in the Tamil Nadu governor matter earlier this year, where a two-judge bench had laid down certain timelines. Soon after, the President made a reference, raising 14 constitutional questions. The Constitution Bench heard arguments over ten days and reserved its opinion on September 11.

 

In its analysis, the top court emphasised that Articles 200 and 201 were deliberately drafted without rigid timelines to allow constitutional authorities the flexibility to respond to varied legislative contexts across India’s federal structure. Fixing judicial deadlines, the court said, would run contrary to that design. The bench also clarified that the governor’s discretion under Article 200 is constitutionally recognised, and the governor is not bound by ministerial advice when deciding whether to return a Bill or reserve it for the President.

 

The apex court, however, rejected the proposition that a governor may withhold assent indefinitely without returning the Bill to the legislature. Addressing the impact of Article 361, the court held that while the governor enjoys personal immunity, the office of the governor remains subject to the court’s jurisdiction for the limited purpose of ensuring that constitutional duties are performed.

 

On the President’s powers under Article 201, the top court held that judicial timelines cannot apply there either, and that the President is not required to seek the Supreme Court’s advice each time a Bill is reserved. The court reiterated that it cannot review decisions on assent before a Bill becomes law, nor can Article 142 be used to bypass or substitute the constitutional roles assigned to the President or governor. The court declined to answer two of the referred questions as they did not arise from the issues at hand.

 

Supreme Court Advocate Tushar Kumar said the ruling restores the elasticity built into Articles 200 and 201. According to him, the court made clear that assent is an executive function and “not a mechanical act to be standardised by the judiciary” while still allowing a limited mandamus to prevent constitutional deadlock.

 

Abhinay Sharma, managing partner, ASL Partners, noted that the decision tightens the governor’s options and blocks indefinite withholding of assent. He said the ruling “reaffirms federal balance” by requiring governors to act, but without stripping the Union of its constitutional role in matters requiring reservation.

 

B Shravanth Shanker, advocate-on-record, Supreme Court, observed that the advisory opinion may be revisited in a future adversarial case but remains authoritative unless overruled. He added that the per curiam format signals institutional unity — “a collective voice, rather than individual judicial authorship” — in a politically sensitive reference.