No timelines can be fixed 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, and the Governor’s actions in granting, withholding, or reserving assent to Bills were beyond judicial review.

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.

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.”

“The concept of ‘deemed assent’ in the context of Articles 200 and 201 presupposes that one constitutional authority (herein, the Court), could play a ‘substitutional role’ for another constitutional functionary (herein, the Governor, or President). Such a usurpation of the gubernatorial function of the Governor, and similarly of the President’s functions, is antithetical not only to the spirit of the Constitution, but also specifically, the doctrine of separation of powers – which is a part of the basic structure110 of the Indian Constitution,” the Bench said.

“We have no hesitation in concluding that the concept of deemed assent of pending Bills by the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, is virtually a takeover of the role, and function, of a separate constitutional authority. The reliance on Article 142, cannot lead to supplanting constitutional provisions itself,” the Bench said.

Answering the Presidential Reference on fixing timelines in granting assent to Bills by the Governor and the President, the Bench, however, rejected the Centre’s argument that the Governor can simply withhold the Bill without returning 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.

Reiterating that the discharge of the Governor’s or President’s functions under Articles 200 and 201 respectively 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 can 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.

The Supreme Court’s opinion on a Reference under Article 143 is not binding on the President and it’s not a binding law within the meaning of Article 141. It’s open to the top court to answer the reference or not. However, in case it does not want to answer the Reference, the court has to give reasons.

A two-judge Bench of the top court had on April 8 set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills and reserving them to the President even after they were re-enacted by the state assembly, terming it “illegal and erroneous”. Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, it had said the bills were “deemed” to have received the Governor’s assent in view of inordinate delay. The verdict led to the Presidential Reference.

Pronouncing the verdict, CJI Gavai said that the Governor has 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. The Governor enjoys discretion under Article 200, as indicated by the use of the words “in his opinion” in the second proviso of Article 200. 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.”

“However, in a glaring circumstance of inaction, that is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite, the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his functions under Article 200 within a reasonable time period without making any observation on the merits of the exercise of the discretion,” it said.

Noting that Article 361 is an absolute bar on judicial review, the Bench, however, said, “it cannot be used to negate the limited scope of judicial review that this Court is empowered to exercise in cases of prolonged inaction by the Governor under Article 200. While the Governor enjoys personal immunity, the office of the Governor is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction.”

The decision of the President and the Governor was not justiciable at the stage of Bill, it said and went on to clarify that the President cannot seek the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 every time the Governor reserves a Bill for the President.