Supreme Court Rules Courts Cannot Fix Timelines for Governors or President to Approve Bills

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that courts cannot set deadlines for the President or Governors to grant assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, stating that the concept of “deemed assent” is incompatible with the constitutional framework.

A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar, delivered the judgment in response to a Presidential reference following the Tamil Nadu Bills case. The Bench held that imposing a judicial timeline on constitutional authorities would undermine the flexibility embedded in Articles 200 and 201.

The court observed that fixing a time limit would effectively “supplant the authority of another constitutional organ.” While the Governor’s decision under Article 200 is not subject to judicial review, courts may issue a “limited mandamus” directing the Governor to act within a reasonable timeframe, without interfering in the merits of the discretion exercised.

The Bench clarified that Governors cannot withhold Bills indefinitely. The Constitution allows only three options: grant assent, return the Bill to the legislature with comments, or refer it to the President. “The Governor does not have the power to simpliciter withhold,” the court noted, emphasising that the choice among these options remains a matter of discretion.

The ruling also reaffirmed that executive authority rests with the elected government, rejecting the Centre’s argument that Article 200 grants unrestricted discretion to the Governor.

This verdict departs from a two-judge Bench ruling earlier this year, which had invoked Article 142 to treat ten Tamil Nadu Bills as having received “deemed assent” after delays by Governor R.N. Ravi and prescribed a three-month timeline for gubernatorial and presidential action.

Also Read: Why a Lab of IISER Kolkata is Opposing Recent SC’s Directive on Stray Dogs?