A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai has ruled that neither the President nor Governors can be legally bound by fixed timelines to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. While the discretion to assent lies constitutionally with these authorities, the Court emphasized that indefinite delay is impermissible and courts may issue limited directions in such circumstances to protect the legislative process.
Background
The ruling came on a Presidential Reference under Article 143 seeking clarity on whether courts can mandate timelines for assent under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. This followed a 2025 ruling that had imposed strict deadlines and introduced the concept of “deemed assent” if timelines were missed, which the Supreme Court found inconsistent with constitutional principles and separation of powers.
Constitutional Discretion and Judicial Review
The Court highlighted the constitutional “elasticity” allowing Governors three exclusive options when a bill is presented: assent, withholding with return to the Assembly, or reservation for the President.
This discretion is generally not subject to judicial scrutiny on merits. However, unexplained or prolonged delays frustrating the legislative process enable courts to intervene and direct timely decisions without impinging on the essence of the Governor’s or President’s discretion.
Impact of the Verdict
This decision nullifies the earlier concept of automatic “deemed assent” after breaches of judicially fixed timelines. It protects the constitutional role and independence of Presidents and Governors while ensuring they fulfill their duties without causing legislative paralysis.
Truth and Justice in Governance
Sant Rampal Ji Maharaj advocates that governance must be rooted in truth, righteousness, and justice. The Supreme Court’s nuanced verdict upholds these ideals by maintaining constitutional balance, protecting democratic processes, and preventing misuse or neglect of power, ensuring governance guided by ethical principles.
Important Facts
- The Supreme Court ruled no fixed timelines can be imposed on assent by the President or Governors.
- Governors have three constitutionally sanctioned options under Article 200 when presented with bills.
- Courts can intervene only in cases of unreasonable delay causing legislative frustration.
- The verdict overturns prior rulings introducing automatic “deemed assent” concepts.
- The decision preserves the doctrine of separation of powers and constitutional flexibility.
SC Safeguards Constitutional Ethos
The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion carefully balances constitutional discretion with the need for timely legislative processes. By rejecting fixed timelines and “deemed assent” while permitting judicial intervention against indefinite delays, the ruling maintains democratic governance integrity and respects the autonomous roles of Presidents and Governors. This precedent safeguards cooperative federalism and upholds constitutional ethos in India’s legislative framework.
FAQs: Courts Can’t Impose Deadlines on President and Governors
1. Can courts impose deadlines on Governors/President for bill assent?
No, the Supreme Court ruled timelines cannot be judicially mandated.
2. What options do Governors have when bills are presented?
Assent, withhold and return, or reserve the bill for the President.
3. Is indefinite delay by Governors or Presidents allowed?
No, courts may direct a timely decision in cases of unreasonable delay.
4. Can the merits of a Governor’s or President’s decision be challenged in court?
No, only the unreasonable delay in decision-making is subject to limited judicial review.
5. What is “deemed assent” and what happened to this concept?
It meant automatic bill approval after deadlines, but the Court invalidated this on constitutional grounds.
