Supreme Court Declines Timelines for Assent to Bills, Says Governors Cannot Keep Legislation Pending Indefinitely

Delhi: In a crucial constitutional ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court held that it would be inappropriate for the judiciary to prescribe fixed timelines for the President or Governors to grant assent to legislation, reaffirming that such a move would interfere with the Constitution’s separation of powers. The five-judge Constitution bench clarified that while Governors do not have the authority to keep bills pending without action, courts cannot impose rigid deadlines for decision-making.

The bench emphasized that the conduct of the President or Governors in matters of assent is “not justiciable”, meaning their actions cannot be challenged unless a bill ultimately becomes law. Judicial review, the court said, is triggered only at that later stage.

During the proceedings, Chief Justice of India (CJI) noted that the arguments advanced by the Centre and various state governments in support of the Presidential reference had been fully considered and recorded in the judgment.

The bench further clarified that Article 142, which grants sweeping powers to the Supreme Court to ensure complete justice, cannot be invoked to grant “deemed assent” to bills—an option the court had controversially exercised in April in a case involving bills pending before the Tamil Nadu Governor. The judges observed that such an approach would amount to the judiciary performing the functions of another constitutional authority, which is impermissible.

Reiterating the constitutional scheme, the court said Governors typically have three courses of action when presented with a bill passed by a state legislature:

1. Grant assent,
2. Return the bill for reconsideration, or
3. Refer it to the President.

The court rejected the notion that Governors possess unchecked powers to delay bills indefinitely. However, it also underscored that imposing statutory timelines would undermine the “elasticity” intentionally built into the Constitution.

Responding to the question raised through the Presidential reference submitted by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1), the bench reiterated that the Governor’s decision-making under Article 200 is itself not open to judicial review, except in extremely limited circumstances.