Supreme Court Declares It Cannot Set Timelines for Governor or President on Bills

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on Thursday, November 20, making it clear that it cannot impose rigid timelines on the President or Governors for granting assent to state Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

This decision came while answering a Presidential reference under Article 143, which sought clarity after recent legal confusion over how quickly constitutional authorities must act on Bills passed by state legislatures.

This ruling essentially overturns an earlier judgment that required the Governor or President to make a decision within three months. The Supreme Court has now clarified that such directions violate the core principles of India’s constitutional structure.

Let’s break down what happened — in simple, easy-to-understand language — and why this judgment actually matters.

Understanding the Issue: Why the Supreme Court Was Asked to Clarify

Earlier, a two-judge bench had ruled in a Tamil Nadu case that Governors must decide on Bills within a fixed timeline.

This created a nationwide debate:

• Can the judiciary tell the President or Governor when to act?
• What happens if they delay?
• Should delayed Bills automatically become law?

To resolve this confusion, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143 and formally asked the Supreme Court for its opinion.

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI BR Gavai heard arguments for ten days and finally delivered its opinion.

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling: No Timelines, No “Deemed Assent”

The Supreme Court made two big points very clear.

1. The Judiciary Cannot Fix Timelines for President/Governor

The Court said that forcing the President or Governor to act within three months — or any specific time — is not allowed.
Why?

Because the Constitution does not prescribe any timeline under Articles 200 (Governor’s assent) or 201 (President’s assent).

If the judiciary creates one, it would be:

• Making new law, not interpreting it
• A violation of separation of powers
• An interference with the executive’s authority

In simple words, the Court said:

“We cannot step into the shoes of the executive.”

2. “Deemed Assent” Is Unconstitutional

The Court firmly rejected the idea that if the Governor/President delays, the Bill should automatically get approved.

This “deemed assent” idea was seen as dangerous because:

• It bypasses constitutional checks
• It forces assent without proper review
• It is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution

The Court explained:

“Automatic assent after a judicially fixed timeline amounts to the judiciary taking over the executive’s duties.”

That, the judges said, is simply not permissible.

But the Supreme Court Did Leave One Door Open

While the Court refused to impose strict deadlines, it did acknowledge a real-world problem:
Sometimes Governors sit on Bills for long periods without any explanation. This effectively blocks the democratic process.

To prevent misuse, the Court added an important caveat.

Judicial Review Is Allowed in Cases of Excessive Delay

If the delay is:

• Unreasonable
• Unexplained
• Politically motivated
• Or seems intended to block legislation

…then the courts can step in and ask the Governor/President to act within a “reasonable period.”

However, the court also clarified:

• Judges cannot say what the decision should be
• Judges cannot interfere with the merits of the Bill
• Courts can only ask them to make a decision

This balanced approach respects both constitutional authority and democratic accountability.

Constitutional Context: What Articles 200 and 201 Actually Say

Understanding these Articles helps make sense of the debate.

Article 200: Governor’s Options on a Bill

When a state legislature passes a Bill, the Governor can:

1. Give assent
2. Withhold assent
3. Return it for reconsideration
4. Reserve it for the President

There is no timeline specified.

Article 201: President’s Decision on Reserved Bills

If the Governor sends a Bill to the President, the President can:

1. Give assent
2. Withhold assent
3. Ask the state to reconsider

Again, no timeframe is given.

The Supreme Court’s judgment respects this silence, saying that courts cannot “fill the gap” by creating new constitutional rules.

Why This Case Matters: Practical and Political Implications

This judgment has implications far beyond Tamil Nadu or one state.

Many states have complained in recent years that Governors delay Bills—especially when the state and Centre are run by rival political parties.

What States Feared

• Bills stuck for months
• Key reforms blocked
• Elected governments weakened

What the Centre Feared

• Judiciary forcing the President/Governor’s hand
• Constitutional disruption
• Loss of executive autonomy

What the Supreme Court Chose

A middle path.

It refused to interfere with the executive’s domain but kept the tool of judicial review to prevent abuse.

This is a very “Indian style” solution — respecting federalism while maintaining checks and balances.

Summary Table: Supreme Court’s Key Findings

Real-Life Example to Understand the Impact

Imagine a state government passes a Bill to reform local transport rules. The Governor disagrees with the political ideology of the ruling party and simply sits on the Bill for 10 months.

• No action
• No return
• No explanation

Earlier, courts could not do much.

After this judgment:

• Courts still cannot force the Governor to approve the Bill
• But they can direct the Governor to “take a decision within a reasonable time”

This prevents misuse without destroying executive independence.

Why the Idea of “Deemed Assent” Was Rejected

Here’s a simple analogy.

Imagine your college professor doesn’t check your assignment for days. If someone says:

“If the professor doesn’t check it in 10 days, you automatically get full marks.”

That sounds great, but it’s unfair — because the professor never evaluated it.

Similarly, giving “automatic assent” without decision:

• Ignores constitutional safeguards
• Removes checks on state legislation
• Weakens federal balance

The Supreme Court essentially said:
No shortcut can replace constitutional procedure.

My Analysis: Why This Is a Wise but Delicate Judgment

This ruling actually does a fine job of balancing two competing constitutional values:

1. Executive Independence

The President and Governors must remain neutral and above politics. Imposing timelines risks turning them into rubber-stamp authorities.

2. Legislative Functioning

States need to make laws without being blocked indefinitely.

The Court’s approach:

• Prevents judicial overreach
• Prevents executive misuse
• Keeps democratic processes moving

However, the ruling also places a lot of trust in constitutional authorities. If they delay decisions too often, states may still struggle — and courts will have to carefully ensure their power of review is exercised responsibly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a landmark clarification on the roles of Governors, the President, and the judiciary in India’s federal setup. By refusing to set strict timelines or endorse “deemed assent,” the Court has protected the principle of separation of powers. At the same time, it kept judicial review as a safeguard against unreasonable delays.

Overall, the judgment reinforces the idea that constitutional balance is delicate, and none of the three branches should overshadow the others.

FAQs

1. What was the main question before the Supreme Court?

Whether the judiciary can fix timelines for the Governor or President to act on state Bills.

2. Can a Bill become law automatically if the Governor delays?

No. The Supreme Court ruled that “deemed assent” is not constitutional.

3. Can courts intervene if the delay is too long?

Yes, courts can ask the Governor to decide within a reasonable time.

4. Does this ruling affect all states?

Yes, it applies to every state government and every Governor in India.

5. Who delivered the opinion?

A Constitution Bench led by CJI BR Gavai, including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar.