In a landmark opinion on a Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court of India has unanimously held that it cannot impose fixed timelines on Governors or the President for granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The court also decisively rejected the concept of “deemed assent,” calling it a judicial takeover of executive functions and “antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution.”
The ruling was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar. The bench was answering a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking the court’s opinion on key questions regarding the assent process for Bills.
Core Ruling: No Timelines, No Deemed Assent
The court firmly stated that prescribing fixed timelines for constitutional authorities like the Governor and President would violate the “elasticity” deliberately built into the Constitution.
“We have no hesitation in concluding that deemed consent of the Governor, or 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 Court held.
The court clarified that the powers under Article 142 cannot be used to create a concept of “deemed assent” or to substitute the decisions of the President or Governor.
Limited Judicial Power in Cases of “Prolonged Delay”
While rejecting fixed timelines, the court carved out a crucial exception. It held that in cases of “prolonged or unexplained delay” by a Governor that “frustrates the legislative process,” the judiciary can intervene.
The Court can issue a “limited mandamus” to direct the Governor to decide on the Bill within a reasonable time. However, the court explicitly stated it cannot comment on the merits of the Bill or how the discretion should be exercised.
Key Questions Answered by the Supreme Court
The court provided definitive answers to the 14 questions posed in the Presidential Reference.
The Court clarified that when a Bill is presented under Article 200, the Governor has three constitutional options: to assent to the Bill, to withhold assent, or to reserve it for the consideration of the President. Crucially, the Court held that the power to withhold assent is not a standalone option but must necessarily be accompanied by the Governor returning the Bill to the State Legislative Assembly for reconsideration, as mandated by the first proviso to Article 200. Permitting the Governor to withhold a Bill without returning it, the Court reasoned, would undermine the principles of federalism.
On the critical question of whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the Court ruled that while the Governor typically acts on such advice, they exercise personal discretion under Article 200. This discretion is evident from the use of the phrase “in his opinion” in the second proviso, which grants the Governor the power to return a Bill or reserve it for the President’s consideration independently.
Regarding the justiciability of the Governor’s actions, the Court established that the merits of the Governor’s decision under Article 200 are not subject to judicial review. However, in cases of “prolonged, unexplained and indefinite” inaction that frustrates the legislative process, the judiciary can intervene by issuing a limited mandamus. This directive would compel the Governor to discharge their constitutional functions within a reasonable time, without, however, commenting on the merits of the decision itself.
Addressing the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361, the Court stated that while this provision is an absolute bar on legal proceedings against the Governor personally, it cannot be used to shield the office of the Governor from the Court’s jurisdiction in cases of prolonged inaction. Thus, the Court retains the power to issue writs to the office of the Governor to enforce constitutional duties.
On the contentious issue of imposing timelines, the Court decisively ruled that neither the Governor under Article 200 nor the President under Article 201 can be bound by judicially prescribed deadlines. The Court reasoned that the constitutional text was deliberately framed with a “sense of elasticity” to allow these authorities to perform their functions in diverse contexts. Imposing fixed timelines would be contrary to this constitutional design. Consequently, the President’s decision on a Bill reserved for their consideration is also non-justiciable.
The Court further opined that the President is not required to seek the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 whenever a Bill is reserved by a Governor. The President’s subjective satisfaction is sufficient, though a reference may be made in cases lacking clarity.
Emphatically rejecting the concept of “deemed assent,” the Court stated that the exercise of constitutional powers by the President or Governor cannot be substituted by the judiciary under Article 142 of the Constitution. There is no scenario, the Court clarified, where a Bill passed by a State Legislature can become law without the Governor’s assent under Article 200, as the Governor’s role in the legislative process cannot be supplanted.
Finally, the Court affirmed that the decisions of the Governor and President on Bills are not justiciable before a law comes into force, and courts cannot adjudicate the contents of a Bill prior to its enactment.
Background and Context
The Presidential Reference was made in May 2025, shortly after a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, had laid down timelines for Governors to act on Bills. The reference sought to clarify the constitutional position, raising 14 specific queries.
During the extensive hearings, the Union Government, represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued against judicially imposed timelines. SG Mehta contended that while Governors cannot “indefinitely sit on bills,” courts cannot lay down a “straitjacket timeline,” as it would violate the separation of powers.
Several states, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, and Punjab, argued in favor of timelines and judicial intervention to prevent gubernatorial obstruction. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, K.K. Venugopal, Gopal Subramanium, and Arvind P. Datar presented these arguments. Conversely, states like Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh, represented by Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Mahesh Jethmalani, supported the Union’s position.
The Supreme Court’s opinion now provides an authoritative interpretation, balancing the discretion of constitutional authorities with the judiciary’s role as a guardian against arbitrary inaction, thereby settling a significant federal debate in the Indian polity.
(Source: LiveLaw)
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
