In a major ruling that reopens discussions on federal structure and the role of Governors, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that neither the Governor nor the President can be forced to act on State Bills within a fixed time period. The Court also clarified that there can be no concept of “deemed assent” if they do not act within any such timeline.

A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar ruled that the timelines fixed in an earlier judgment from April 8 were incorrect and went beyond the limits of judicial power.

According to the Bench, creating deadlines for the President or Governors, or assuming assent because they did not act on time, would amount to the Court stepping into powers meant exclusively for constitutional authorities. This, the judges said, violates the basic idea of separation of powers.

The Court observed:

The Constitution intentionally gives flexibility to the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201. Courts cannot replace their decision-making by creating concepts like deemed assent. Allowing courts to substitute these authorities would violate the Constitution.

The Bench also made it clear that the Governor’s role in granting assent under Article 200 cannot be replaced by any other authority—including courts—through legal interpretation or judicial direction.

Functions under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable

The Court held that the actions taken by the Governor or President while examining a Bill cannot be challenged before any court. Judicial review is possible only after the Bill becomes a law.

The judges added that constitutional courts may intervene only in cases of extraordinary and unexplained delay, and even then only to direct the Governor to act within a “reasonable” timeframe—without commenting on whether assent should or should not be given.

The Court also reminded that Governors cannot function as “super Chief Ministers” and there cannot be “two executives” in a State.

Key Takeaways

• No fixed timelines can be prescribed for the Governor or President to act on Bills.
• No deemed assent if they do not act within a suggested timeline.
• Their actions on a Bill cannot be challenged before courts.
• Judicial review is possible only after the Bill becomes law, not during the decision-making stage.
• Courts can only intervene in cases of excessive delay, and even then only to ask the Governor to act—not to direct the outcome.

Background

The judgment was delivered on a Presidential Reference moved by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1), which allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or public importance.

The reference arose from an April 11 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, where the Court had laid down specific timelines for Governors to act on Bills, arguing that constitutional silence cannot be misused to halt the law-making process.

That earlier judgment had prescribed deadlines such as granting assent or returning the Bill within one month, acting on reconsidered Bills within another month, and treating inaction beyond three months as deemed assent.

Following this, the President referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, expressing concerns about whether courts can create procedural requirements where the Constitution is silent.

Arguments Before the Court

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, argued that enforcing timelines for a co-equal constitutional authority would violate the separation of powers. He also pointed out that Governors must have the power to refuse assent to “shockingly unconstitutional” Bills—for example, if a State legislature passes a Bill declaring that the State will not remain part of India.

Attorney General R Venkataramani submitted that Article 200 was designed to allow independent judgment by the Governor. He argued that courts should not rewrite constitutional design or attempt to “improve” the structure created by the framers.