Supreme Court Weighs Constitutional Limits on Setting Timelines for Governors and the President

The Supreme Court of India is currently deliberating a significant constitutional question: whether it can prescribe fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on state bills, despite the Constitution’s explicit language requiring them to act only “as soon as possible.”

---

Background: The Presidential Reference under Article 143

The issue stems from an April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court that imposed deadlines — three months for the President to decide on bills and one month for governors to act on re-enacted bills. The judgment sparked intense debate, leading to a Presidential Reference under Article 143.

The reference, sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May, places 14 questions before the Court, including whether judicially crafting procedural rules where the Constitution is silent amounts to rewriting constitutional provisions.

The matter is being heard by a five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar.

---

Constitutional Provisions at the Centre of the Debate

The Court is focusing on Articles 200 and 201, which govern the process of gubernatorial and presidential assent to bills:

• Article 200 allows the Governor to grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President.

• Article 201 gives similar powers to the President for bills reserved by the Governor.

Both articles deliberately use the phrase “as soon as possible” and avoid any fixed timelines.

The Court noted that imposing deadlines could “practically amount to amending the Constitution”, which the judiciary is not empowered to do.

---

Concerns Over Judicially Mandated Timelines

The bench raised crucial questions during hearings:

• If deadlines were imposed, what consequences would follow if the Governor or President failed to meet them?

• Could constitutional authorities be held in contempt of court for missing such deadlines?

The judges stressed that constitutional silence was intentional, and timelines could vary depending on the complexity or context of a bill.

---

Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal’s Arguments

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, argued that indefinite delays amount to a “pocket veto” and weaken state legislatures. He urged the Court to adopt “deemed assent” provisions when deadlines are missed, citing precedents where courts had filled constitutional silences, such as:

• The Rajiv Gandhi assassination remission case

• The Anoop Baranwal ruling on the appointment of Election Commissioners

Singhvi stated, “The Governor cannot become a super Chief Minister. Allegedly unconstitutional bills are passed every day — courts exist to test them. That is the separation of powers.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, supported fixed timelines, warning that allowing indefinite gubernatorial inaction could lead to a constitutional breakdown.

---

Centre’s Stand and Political Context

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed arguments that focused only on Tamil Nadu and Kerala, stating he could provide data “since 1947” showing how constitutional processes were misused.

CJI Gavai intervened, emphasizing that the Court would not decide the matter based on political considerations or which government was in power, but strictly on constitutional principles.

---

April Ruling that Sparked the Reference

In its April 8 ruling, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had invoked Article 142 to set specific timelines:

• Three months for the President to act on bills referred by a Governor.

• One month for Governors to act on re-enacted bills.
  The Court had also deemed 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, citing the Governor’s prolonged inaction as “illegal.”

This move sparked debate on judicial overreach, leading to the current constitution bench hearings.

---

Broader Implications: Federalism and Separation of Powers

The ongoing hearings highlight the tensions between the Union and states and the role of Governors in a federal democracy. Political stand-offs have become common in several states, including:

• Tamil Nadu

• Punjab

• Kerala

• Telangana

• West Bengal

The Court’s eventual ruling could redefine the powers and responsibilities of constitutional heads, with long-term implications for legislative governance in India.

---

Conclusion: A Balancing Act Between Accountability and Constitutional Design

The Supreme Court is navigating a delicate constitutional balance — ensuring Governors and the President act promptly, without overstepping judicial boundaries. While states demand accountability, the bench has signaled caution against “rewriting” the Constitution.

The hearings will continue on Wednesday, and the outcome may set new constitutional benchmarks on timelines for assent, federalism, and the separation of powers.

---