Supreme Court Upholds Centre’s Stand: No Fixed Deadlines for Governors’ Assent — A Landmark Win for Constitutional Balance.
Centre’s Big Win As Top Court Draws the Line on Fixing Timelines for Governors.
In a significant opinion, the Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot prescribe fixed timelines for Governors or the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures, upholding the Centre’s stand on maintaining the constitutional separation of powers.
The court, however, clarified that Governors cannot sit on bills indefinitely and prolonged, unexplained delays are subject to limited judicial review.
Key Details of the Verdict:
No Fixed Timelines: The Constitution Bench ruled that setting fixed timelines would interfere with the Constitution’s flexibility and amount to judicial overreach.
Rejection of ‘Deemed Assent’: The court rejected the idea of “deemed assent,” where a bill would automatically become law after a period of inaction, stating it would improperly replace the role of the Governor or President.
Limited Judicial Review: While courts cannot review the substance of a decision on a bill, they can intervene in cases of prolonged and unexplained inaction. In such situations, a court can direct the Governor to make a decision within a reasonable time, without specifying the outcome.
Governor’s Options: Under Article 200, the Governor has three choices: give assent, withhold assent and return the bill for reconsideration, or reserve the bill for the President.
No Indefinite Inaction: The court emphasized that Governors must act accountably and cannot use inaction to obstruct the legislative process.
In a decisive turn, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that neither the President nor state governors can be bound by rigid judicial timelines when assenting to state legislature bills a judgment that signals a strong victory for the Centre’s constitutional argument. The decision comes in response to a presidential reference made by President Droupadi Murmu, who had sought clarity following a controversial two-judge bench verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Verdict:
A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, ruled unanimously that courts cannot impose fixed deadlines on governors or the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
The Court held that the concept of “deemed assent” whereby a bill would automatically be treated as approved if a governor or President misses a judicially imposed deadline is unconstitutional. The bench said this would amount to a judicial takeover of executive powers, violating the separation of powers.
However, the Court was clear that while no blanket timeline can be enforced, governors cannot delay indefinitely. It left room for judicial review in cases of “prolonged or unexplained delay,” allowing courts to intervene and require a decision within a reasonable time.
The judges emphasized the fundamental role of dialogue between constitutional organs courts, executives, and the presidency rather than rigid judicial dictation.
Why This Matters: Constitutional Implications & Federalism:
The judgment reaffirms the principle of separation of powers, underscoring that the judiciary cannot encroach on the discretionary functions of the executive, especially when executing constitutional duties.
It strengthens the autonomy of state governments by curbing the potential for misuse of gubernatorial or presidential discretion over state bills.
At the same time, the ruling protects the federal structure, ensuring that governors are expected to act with responsibility but not in a way that subverts their constitutional role.
Importantly, the Court clarified that its response to the presidential reference (under Article 143) is advisory, not a review of the earlier two-judge bench ruling.
Political Reactions & Controversies:
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin strongly criticized the Centre’s move to question the earlier judgment, calling it an attempt to undermine state autonomy and democratic institutions.
On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed gratitude for the Court’s “illuminating opinion,” seeing it as a vindication of the Centre’s legal position.
The Attorney General had earlier argued that the President should have been heard in the April ruling, raising concerns about procedural fairness.
Broader Impact & What Comes Next:
The decision sets an important constitutional precedent: while executive discretion remains protected, it must be exercised responsibly — and cannot be paralyzed indefinitely.
For state legislatures, the ruling offers some protection against “pocket vetoes” by governors, but the lack of fixed judicial timelines means uncertainty remains.
Politically, the verdict may ease tension between the Centre and opposition-run states, but critics argue the power dynamics of how governors are appointed (often by the Centre) still pose a challenge to true federal balance.
This case could prompt further debate on reforming the governor’s role in India’s constitutional architecture — especially regarding impartiality, discretion, and accountability.
