Presidential Reference: Supreme Court says timelines can't be fixed for Governors, President for bills' assent

Supreme Court

In a significant verdict delivered on Thursday (November 20) in the Presidential reference concerning the handling of Bills, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court declared that neither the President nor a Governor can be compelled to follow fixed timelines when deciding on assent under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

The judges also made it clear that courts cannot introduce the idea of “deemed assent”, noting that such a move would amount to the judiciary taking over a role “reserved for the Governor”.

The matter reached the Court after the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, sought guidance under Article 143, following a May ruling by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case that had attempted to lay down strict timelines for constitutional authorities dealing with Bills.

The Bench  Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar heard arguments over ten days before reserving the opinion on September 11.

While presenting the unanimous view of the Court, the CJI-led bench stated, “We don’t think governors have unfettered power to sit over bills passed by state assemblies.” The judges said that it would undermine the federal structure if a Governor withheld Bills “without following due process under Article 200”.

The Bench noted that the judiciary cannot direct that assent be presumed merely because a certain duration has passed. According to the Court, declaring automatic approval of a Bill would contradict the separation of powers and ignore the constitutional design regarding assent procedures.

At the same time, the Court recognised that constitutional authorities cannot indefinitely delay decisions. It noted that if the Governor’s inaction becomes “prolonged or unexplained” in a way that effectively blocks the legislature’s functioning, a court may resort to limited judicial review.

In such situations, the judiciary can require the Governor to make a decision within a specified period, though it cannot comment on or predetermine the merits of the Bill itself.

The Supreme Court held that while constitutional offices must act responsibly, courts cannot superimpose deadlines or convert silence into assent. The verdict clarifies that the solution to delays lies not in judicially created doctrines like “deemed assent” but in ensuring that Governors follow the constitutional path set out in Articles 200 and 201.

These are the questions which were asked by the President of India Droupadi Murmu on Presidential reference:

1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

2. Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by 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?

3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

5. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the 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 the Governor?

6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

7. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?

8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the 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 the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?

9. Are the decisions of the Governor and the 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?

10. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?

11. Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

12. In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this Hon'ble 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?

13. Do 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?

14. 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?