New Delhi, Nov 20: In a major constitutional ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that neither courts nor any authority can fix timelines for Governors or the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. The Court also made it clear that the judiciary cannot issue or validate “deemed assent” in such cases.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai unanimously stated that allowing Governors to indefinitely withhold bills without following constitutional procedure under Article 200 would undermine the spirit of federalism. The bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P. S. Narasimha, and A. S. Chandurkar stressed that Governors do not have unfettered powers to keep bills pending.
Responding to the Presidential reference under Article 143(1), the bench clarified that a Governor has only three constitutionally valid options:
Grant assent,
Send the bill back for reconsideration, or
Reserve it for the President’s consideration.
The Court said the Constitution intentionally provides elasticity in the assent process, and imposing a strict timeline would go against this framework in a democratic system.
The bench also criticised its own previous order of April 8 in the Tamil Nadu case, where “deemed assent” was effectively granted. The Court held that such directions amount to the judiciary taking over the functions of a constitutional authority, which is impermissible.
Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the Governor’s decision-making under Article 200 is not subject to judicial review, reinforcing the limited scope of court intervention in the assent process.