The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay bills sent for assent by state legislatures, cautioning that such unexplained inaction could trigger judicial scrutiny. However, the court also clarified that imposing rigid deadlines on Governors would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai set aside the earlier two-judge ruling in the Tamil Nadu case, which had directed Governors to act on pending bills within specific timeframes. The bench — which also included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar — ruled that courts cannot bind constitutional authorities to strict procedural deadlines.
The bench underscored the limits of gubernatorial discretion under Article 200, with CJI Gavai warning that unilateral stalls by a Governor could threaten the federal structure.
“It is against the interest of federalism if the Governor, without following due process under Article 200, is allowed to withhold bills passed by the assembly,” the court observed.
While reaffirming the Governor’s constitutional options — grant assent, return the bill, or refer it to the President — the court stressed that withholding a bill indefinitely to frustrate the legislative process is impermissible.
Presidential Reference Triggered by Tamil Nadu Case
The ruling came in response to a presidential reference issued by President Droupadi Murmu in May under Article 143(1), seeking clarity on whether courts can set deadlines for decisions taken by the President and Governors. The request followed the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict questioning Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s handling of several state bills.
ALSO READ: 1st pic of Anmol Bishnoi after being brought to India | Why the deportation matters
The bench emphasised that India’s democratic framework requires a degree of constitutional flexibility, observing that fixing legal deadlines for Governors is “against the elasticity provided by the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court also dismissed the argument for deemed assent, warning that such a precedent would amount to the judiciary usurping executive functions.
“A verdict granting deemed assent of a bill by a court is a virtual takeover of constitutional function,” the bench noted.
The court reiterated that while the judiciary cannot encroach on the lawmaking domain, it may examine “unexplained indefinite delays” to ensure constitutional propriety.
Unanimous Ruling Earns Praise From Both Sides
After delivering the judgment, CJI Gavai noted that the bench sought to “speak in one voice,” and thanked his colleagues — CJI-designate Surya Kant, and Justices Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar — for helping craft a unanimous opinion.
The ruling drew praise across the legal spectrum. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta called it an “illuminating judgment,” while senior advocate Kapil Sibal described it as “circumspect and thoughtful.”
