Today, on 20th November, in the Presidential Reference row, As the Supreme Court rules that there can be no deemed assent and no fixed timelines for the Governor or the President on State Bills, it reinforces boundaries and stresses that authorities must act with transparency and restraint
New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is continuing the hearing of the Presidential Reference on whether fixed timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President for giving assent to State bills.
The matter is being heard under Article 143 of the Constitution, after the Court’s earlier ruling in April 2025 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor.
A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, was addressing a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court began reading its opinion. The hearing concerned the question of whether the Supreme Court can impose timelines or prescribe how Governors and the President should act on State Bills placed before them for assent or sent for reservation.
The Court emphasized,
“The imposition of timelines is strictly contrary to the elasticity that Constitution has preserved. The concept of Deemed assent in the context of Articles 200 and 201 presupposes that one Constitutional authority, namely court, could play a substitutional role for another Constitutional functionary authority – the Governor or President. Such usurpation of gubernatorial powers of governor or president is antithetical to the spirit of the constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers. The concept of deemed assent of pending bills amounts to virtually takeaway of role of another Constitutional authority,”
The Bench clarified that the Governor’s duty to grant assent to bills under Article 200 cannot be replaced by another authority through deemed assent.
As a result, the Court ruled that the actions of the President and Governor regarding bills are not subject to judicial review, meaning they cannot be contested in court before a bill is enacted into law. The Court highlighted that judicial scrutiny can only occur once the bill has become law.
The Court stated,
“It is unfathomable to suggest bills can be brought to court rather than being opined on under Article 143 as referred by the president under advisory jurisdiction. President need not seek advice of this court every time when bills are referred to him,”
The Court can intervene only in cases of excessive and unexplained delay, assessing each case individually.
The Court asserted,
“Not everything will lead courts to issue automatic directions to act, and it has to be measured based on appropriate circumstances; courts can issue limited directions in terms of constitutional accountability,”
In summary:
- No timelines can be set for the Governor or President to respond to bills passed by the State legislature.
- There can be no deemed assent for such bills due to inaction by the Governor or President within prescribed timelines.
- The actions of the President and Governor concerning a bill cannot be challenged in court.
- Judicial review will only be permissible after a bill becomes law.
- If the Governor does not act within a reasonable timeframe as outlined in Article 200, the constitutional court may exercise limited judicial review and direct the Governor to act within a reasonable period, without commenting on the merits of their discretion.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, argued that both the executive and legislature are custodians of the Constitution. He indicated that issuing a mandamus regarding the legislative discretion of a constitutional peer (the Governor in this case) would breach the separation of powers principle.
To support his claim regarding the Governor’s power to withhold assent, Mehta noted that a Governor could justifiably refuse assent to a bill aiming to declare a state’s secession from the Union of India, considering such a bill would be “shockingly unconstitutional.”
Mehta also pointed out that the trend of states, especially Delhi, approaching the Court has recently emerged, whereas traditionally, the system has functioned harmoniously.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani contended that it is not the Court’s role to modify Article 200.
Adding that the independent judgment of the Governor is an integral aspect of Article 200’s framework, Venkataramani remarked,
“Courts can and must read rights into constitutional provisions, but here it is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of the structural design of the Constitution,”
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to seek clarification from the Supreme Court regarding whether judicial orders could impose timelines on the President’s discretion when dealing with state assembly bills.
Background
The Presidential Reference followed the April 8 Supreme Court ruling which held that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on Bills passed by State legislatures. Though Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Court said Governors must act within a reasonable time and cannot stall the democratic process.
The Court also held that under Article 201, the President must decide on Bills within three months. If delayed, reasons must be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.
The exact words of the April 8 judgment were:
“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.”
President Murmu later sent 14 questions to the Court, asking whether the judiciary could impose such deadlines and whether the concept of “deemed assent” was constitutionally valid.
While the Centre backs the Reference, arguing that Governors’ powers cannot be curtailed by judicial timelines, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have asked the Court to dismiss it as not maintainable.
These are the 14 key questions raised by the President:
- “What are the constitutional options before a governor when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is Governor bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?”
- “Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicially review in relation to the actions of Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit and the manner of exercise of powers by Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by Governor?”
- “Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?”
- “In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of President, is President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when Governor reserves a bill for President’s assent or otherwise?”
- “Are decisions of Governor and President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?”
- “Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by President/Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is a law made by the state legislature a law in force without the assent of Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In view of the proviso to Article 145 of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five judges?”
- “… the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions/passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?”
- “Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union government and the state governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?”
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | SPL. REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A
Read Attachment- Questions referred by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution
Read Attachment
Read Live Coverage
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
