Supreme Court's big decision: Courts cannot impose deadlines on the Governor and President for assent to bills; even indefinite stays are wrong

 

In a landmark judgment today, the Supreme Court of India clarified that no timeline can be imposed on the Governor or the President for assent to bills passed by state legislatures. Furthermore, the Court declared the concept of "deemed assent" completely unconstitutional. However, the Court also stated that Governors cannot indefinitely delay bills and must maintain dialogue with state governments under the principle of cooperative federalism. This judgment came on a Presidential Reference made by President Draupadi Murmu under Article 143. A five-judge Constitution Bench (CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar) delivered this unanimous opinion.

This judgment came on a Presidential Reference made by President Draupadi Murmu under Article 143. A five-judge Constitution bench (CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar) delivered this opinion unanimously.

Highlights of the judgment: Time limit cannot be imposed: Under Articles 200 and 201, the powers of the Governor and the President are flexible. Imposing a court-imposed time limit would violate the principle of separation of powers.

Deemed assent unconstitutional: The concept of automatically accepting a bill after the expiry of the deadline is not enshrined in the Constitution. This is an encroachment on the powers of the Governor/President.

Indefinitely withholding bills: The Governor cannot indefinitely withhold bills. Doing so would harm the federal structure. The Governor should engage in dialogue with the Assembly and avoid obstruction.

Governor's options: Under Article 200, the Governor has three options: assent, return, or reserve with the President. If a bill that has been returned is passed again, assent must be granted.

The President's Role: Under Article 201, the President's decisions are also beyond judicial review, but limited judicial intervention is possible in cases of undue delay.

The entire matter began with a Supreme Court decision in April 2025, which declared Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's prolonged withholding of 10 bills illegal. The bench set a three-month deadline and granted deemed assent to some bills. Subsequently, the President sent a reference raising 14 constitutional questions. The Court clarified today that the April decision was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution in some respects, but that curbing the arbitrariness of governors is necessary.

Experts say this decision will impact central-state relations. Complaints of governors stalling bills are common in states with opposition parties. The Court stated that elected governments should remain in the driving seat of the legislative process.