In a landmark ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court made it clear that the Constitution does not permit courts to prescribe specific timelines for the President or Governors to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. While asserting that Governors cannot indefinitely delay their decision on pending legislation, the bench emphasised that imposing rigid deadlines would violate the principle of separation of powers.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, responding to a Presidential reference under Article 143(1), observed that the actions of the President and Governors in relation to pending bills fall largely outside the scope of judicial scrutiny. The court clarified that judicial review becomes applicable only after a bill receives assent and formally becomes law.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud noted during the proceedings that the Supreme Court had taken on record the arguments presented by both the Central and state governments, and those inputs were reflected in the final judgment. The bench also ruled that Article 142, which grants extraordinary powers to the Supreme Court, cannot be invoked to create a doctrine of “deemed assent”, and doing so would amount to assuming the role of a constitutional authority.
The court reiterated that the Constitution provides Governors with three legitimate courses of action regarding bills:
-
Grant assent,
-
Send the bill back to the legislature for reconsideration, or
-
Refer the bill to the President for a final decision.
“We do not accept the idea that Governors possess unrestricted authority to keep bills pending indefinitely,” the bench observed. However, it added that enforcing a strict timeline would run contrary to the “elasticity” intended by the framers of the Constitution.
In a strong remark, the bench disapproved of its earlier interim order of April 8 in the Tamil Nadu case—where it had granted “deemed assent” to bills held up by the Governor—calling it an overreach that effectively displaced the role assigned to constitutional functionaries.
Concluding the judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Governor’s exercise of power under Article 200 is not justiciable, underscoring that remedies can only arise after a bill becomes law. The ruling is expected to reshape the ongoing debate around federalism, gubernatorial powers, and the balance between constitutional offices in India’s democratic framework.
