Can’t fix timelines for grant of assent to Bills by Governor, President: SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that no timelines can be fixed for grant of assent to Bills by the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201, respectively, but at the same time said the Governor does not have “unfettered” powers to sit on the Bills for “perpetuity”.

In a unanimous verdict, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said that in such cases, the Governor was not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. It also said the Governor’s actions in granting, withholding or reserving assent to Bills were beyond judicial review.

The Bench, which also included Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar, said the concept of “deemed assent” (introduced by a two-judge Bench of the court in April 2025 in Tamil Nadu Governor’s case) was against the spirit of the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers. Noting that Articles 200 and 201 were framed to allow elasticity, the Bench said, “The imposition of timelines would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution so carefully preserved.”

It said “deemed” assent of the Governor or the President on Bills at the expiry of a judicially set timeline amounted to a “takeover and substitution” of the executive functions by the judiciary, which was impermissible. The concept of deemed assent of pending Bills by the court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 was virtually a takeover of the role and function of a separate constitutional authority, it said.

Regarding the Tamil Nadu verdict that led to the Presidential Reference, the Bench said, “The constitutional effect is such that it is not merely a gap-filling exercise, or a procedural exercise that the court undertook, but a substantive one which finds no basis in the text of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that Article 142 cannot be employed to arrive at a conclusion contrary to the express provisions of the Constitution.”

Answering the Presidential Reference on fixing timelines, the Bench, however, rejected the Centre’s argument that the Governor could simply withhold a Bill without returning it to the House. “To permit the Governor to withhold the Bill without returning it to the House will derogate the principle of federalism,” it said.

Can’t sit on legislation forever

The SC says the concept of ‘deemed assent’ is against the spirit of the Constitution

The Governor’s actions in granting, withholding or reserving assent to Bills are beyond judicial review

The Governor not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers

The discretion, however, doesn’t give the Governor unfettered powers to sit on the Bills for perpetuity

In case of prolonged delay, the court can direct the Governor to decide on the issue in time-bound manner

Reiterating that the discharge of the Governor’s or President’s functions under Articles 200 and 201 was not justiciable,” the top court, however, said, “The Governor has no option to withhold a Bill simpliciter. Therefore, it is not that the discretion so conferred allows a situation wherein the Governor could frustrate a Bill in perpetuity.”

The Bench said if there’s a prolonged or unexplained delay by the Governor which frustrates the legislative process, then the court could exercise a limited power of judicial review to direct the Governor to decide in a time-bound manner, without observing anything on the merits of the Bill.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta thanked the Constitution Bench on behalf of President Droupadi Murmu, who had on August 19 sent 14 contentious constitutional questions through a Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution to the top court over its recent judgment imposing timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to Bills passed by state legislatures.

Pronouncing the verdict, CJI Gavai said that the Governor had three constitutional options regarding a Bill presented to him—to grant assent, to reserve for the President or to withhold and return the Bill to Assembly, and if the Governor was withholding assent to the Bill, then it must be necessarily returned to the state legislature.

“Ordinarily, the Governor exercises functions under the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. But in Article 200, the Governor exercises discretion… as indicated by the use of the words “in his opinion” in the second proviso. The Governor has discretion either to return the Bill or to reserve the Bill for the President,” it said, adding “the President too cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 201”.