Can court fix deadlines for Prez, Guv call on Bills, wonders SC

As various opposition-ruled states asserted that timelines were necessary to check repeated instances of Governors withholding Bills indefinitely, the Supreme Court on Tuesday wondered if it can prescribe blanket timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by state legislatures.

“Can we lay down a straightjacket formula under Article 142 (of the Constitution) for exercising the powers of the President and Governors?” a five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI BR Gavai asked.

On the sixth day of the hearings on the Presidential Reference on timelines for assent to state Bills, it noted that certain instances of delay in granting assent to Bills cannot justify the laying down of a blanket timeline for Governors and the President to act under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution, respectively.

In individual cases of delay, aggrieved parties can approach the court, which may direct that a decision be taken within a time limit. But that does not mean the court can prescribe a general timeline for Governors or the President, said the Bench, which also included Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar.

The Constitution provided for flexibility by saying that the Bills be returned “as soon as possible” without specifying any time limits, it pointed out.

However, senior advocate AM Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu Government, said, “Case-to-case interventions will not solve the problem.”

The comments from the Bench came after Singhvi supported the three-month deadline fixed by a two-judge Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case in April 2025. Timelines were needed to deal with repeated instances of Governors sitting over Bills indefinitely.

Singhvi said without structured limits, Governors could effectively exercise a “pocket veto”, stalling legislation indefinitely.

However, Justice Nath said laying down a general timeline would practically amount to the court amending the Constitution as Articles 200 and 201 did not specify any timeline.

The Bench also wondered what the consequences would be if the Governor or the President did not follow the timeline prescribed by the court. “Can the Governor or the President be hauled up for contempt of court,” the Bench asked.

As Singhvi said the situation could lead to “deemed assent” being granted to the Bills, Justice Nath pointed out that if a Bill getting ‘deemed assent’ was challenged before the court, there would be a conflict of interest.

On behalf of the West Bengal Government, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said, “Withholding assent thwarts the will of the people…For the first time in history, this court would be asked to hold that the will of the people need not be implemented because Governor withholds assent, an unacceptable proposition. Neither Governors nor the President had any independent legislative power.”

“Where in the Constitution is there a provision that allows the Governor to thwart the legislature?” Sibal asked.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, maintained that any judicial intervention in such matters would destabilise the constitutional balance and it would go against the concept of separation of powers.