SC rules courts cannot fix deadlines for President or Governors on bills; rejects ‘deemed assent’ concept

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that constitutional courts cannot impose timelines on the President or state governors for decisions on Bills passed by state legislatures, rejecting the idea that courts can direct time-bound assent or create a concept of deemed assent.

The Constitution Bench said such orders would amount to the judiciary taking over powers exclusively vested in the executive offices under Articles 200 and 201.

Delivering its advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference under Article 143(1), the Bench stated that while courts may review a governor’s prolonged inaction, they cannot dictate how or when assent should be given, according to reports by The Times of India.

The ruling came months after controversy over a previous two-judge order that fixed deadlines and declared a ‘deemed assent’ to several Tamil Nadu bills.

Five-Judge Bench Overturns Earlier Order

A five-judge Bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, unanimously held that the judiciary cannot override the constitutional discretion vested in governors and the President.

The court said the earlier two-judge order that set deadlines and invoked Article 142 to confirm assent for ten pending Tamil Nadu bills ‘went beyond judicial authority’. It clarified that the power to consider, return, reserve or withhold assent under Articles 200 and 201 lies solely with constitutional heads and cannot be usurped or replaced by a judicial assumption of assent.

The bench further noted that the President cannot be compelled to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion every time a bill is reserved for consideration, rejecting another interpretation made by the earlier bench.

Sc Urges Dialogue, Not Obstruction

The bench stressed that the constitutional scheme requires governors to work in a cooperative, consultative manner with state governments. It said governors, when disagreeing with bills, should return them with reasons and engage legislatures instead of creating “obstruction through inaction.”

The court also confirmed that governors retain discretion to either return a bill with observations or reserve it for the President, which is a discretion that “cannot be diluted or judicially rewritten.”

The opinion follows a five-page reference sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May this year, posing 14 constitutional questions related to legislative assent, governor discretion, judicial limits, and whether time-bound directions could be issued in the absence of explicit timelines in the Constitution.

The questions stemmed from a series of disputes between state governments and governors over assent delays, particularly in states such as Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala and Telangana. The ruling is likely to influence Centre-state relations and clarify the scope of gubernatorial authority as more states pursue litigation over pending legislation.