Supreme Court: No Timelines for Governors and the President to Clear Bills

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench has clarified a major constitutional question: courts cannot impose judicial timelines on governors or the President while granting assent to state legislation. This advisory opinion, delivered under Article 143 of the Constitution, reinforces the foundational principle of separation of powers, particularly regarding the relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the federal structure.

This ruling overturns an earlier two-judge judgment that had introduced strict timelines and the concept of "deemed assent," creating significant constitutional confusion. The Constitution Bench has now restored clarity and reaffirmed constitutional boundaries.

---

Background of the Presidential Reference

In May, the President of India referred a set of 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143. These questions arose from an April 8 judgment that:

1. Imposed strict timelines on governors and the President for granting assent.

2. Introduced the concept of "deemed assent" on expiry of these timelines.

3. Created uncertainty about the scope of judicial review on assent-related functions.

Given the conflict with earlier Constitution Bench judgments and the constitutional text, the President sought authoritative clarification.

---

Articles 200 and 201: Scope and Constitutional Scheme

The court’s analysis centered on Articles 200 and 201, which outline the procedure and options for gubernatorial and presidential assent.

Article 200 (Governor’s Powers):

A governor may:

1. Grant assent.

2. Withhold assent and return the Bill (except money bills) for reconsideration.

3. Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.

The phrase “as soon as possible” applies only to the act of returning a Bill for reconsideration — not to all categories of assent.

Article 201 (President’s Powers):

Where a Bill is reserved for consideration, the President may:

1. Grant assent.

2. Withhold assent.

3. Direct the governor to return the Bill (if not a money bill) for reconsideration.

The court emphasised that these provisions reflect a deliberative, dialogic constitutional design, not a mechanical administrative framework.

---

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

No Judicially Imposed Timelines

The Constitution Bench held that courts cannot impose timelines on the governor or the President for granting assent. Doing so would:

• Violate separation of powers.

• Override constitutional text.

• Encroach on the executive domain.

April 8 Judgment Overruled

The April 8 ruling was declared inconsistent with:

• Constitutional structure.

• Earlier Constitution Bench decisions.

• The federal design envisaged by the Constitution.

The introduction of “deemed assent” was termed an unconstitutional encroachment upon executive discretion.

Governor’s Discretion Is Limited, But Not Perfunctory

While the governor ordinarily acts on ministerial advice, Article 200 contemplates independent discretion, especially when reserving Bills for the President. This role cannot be reduced to formality.

However, the governor’s discretion is also not unfettered; indefinite delays cannot be justified.

---

Judicial Review: Limited but Available

The court clarified that while assent-related functions under Articles 200 and 201 are non-justiciable in substance, judicial review may be invoked where:

• There is deliberate, prolonged inaction.

• Constitutional processes are being frustrated.

In such cases, courts may direct the governor to exercise one of the three options — but cannot dictate which option must be chosen.

Courts cannot:

• Examine merits of assent decisions.

• Pre-evaluate Bills before they become law.

• Substitute the constitutional authorities’ decisions.

---

Federal Tensions: States vs Governors

The ruling comes at a time when several states — including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Telangana and Karnataka — have complained of gubernatorial inaction.

The court acknowledged these concerns but maintained that it cannot rewrite constitutional provisions to resolve political disputes. Its intervention is limited to preventing constitutional paralysis, not influencing political outcomes.

---

Why the April 8 Judgment Failed Constitutional Scrutiny

The April judgment had:

• Set a one-month deadline for governors to act on Bills returned by legislatures.

• Set a three-month timeline for Bills reserved for the President.

• Introduced the concept of deemed assent.

The Constitution Bench held that this approach:

• Rewrote Articles 200 and 201.

• Violated separation of powers (a basic feature).

• Ignored earlier authoritative precedents.

• Risked destabilising the federal balance.

Hence, the President’s Article 143 reference was considered justified.

---

The Deliberative Federal Structure

Articles 168, 200 and 201 together represent a dialogic federal model involving:

• State Legislature

• Governor

• President

This system encourages constitutional deliberation, especially where Bills touch upon:

• Federal concerns

• Inter-state implications

• Constitutional validity

Judicially imposed timelines would undermine this deliberative process.

---

Articles 142 and 145: Court Declines to Expand Its Jurisdiction

Among the 14 questions, the Court refused to answer three, including:

• Whether Article 142 can override explicit constitutional provisions.

• Whether the Supreme Court can adjudicate Union–State disputes outside Article 131.

• Whether a matter requires a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3).

These issues, the Court said, fall outside the functional scope of the Article 143 reference.

---

Conclusion

The Constitution Bench’s advisory opinion restores stability to a sensitive constitutional area. While affirming that governors and the President cannot be bound by judicial timelines, the Court also recognised the need to prevent constitutional deadlock caused by deliberate inaction.

This judgment:

• Clarifies the limits of judicial power.

• Reinforces the federal balance.

• Preserves the deliberative character of constitutional processes.

• Acknowledges the need for procedural accountability without rewriting the Constitution.

It ultimately reaffirms the Constitution’s core principle: separation of powers must be respected, even amidst political tensions.

---