Governors cannot sit indefinitely on Bills, says SC, but stops short of fixing timeline

New Delhi: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that neither the Governor nor the President can be subjected to fixed timelines for granting assent to Bills passed by State legislatures. The Court also made it clear that the judiciary cannot create a mechanism of “deemed assent” in cases of delay.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai unanimously ruled that it would be “against the interest of federalism” if a Governor, without following due process under Article 200, is allowed to indefinitely withhold Bills passed by elected assemblies. “We don’t think Governors have unfettered power to sit over Bills,” the bench observed, underscoring that such delays undermine the functioning of democratically elected governments.

The bench, which also comprised Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, was delivering its opinion on a Presidential reference made under Article 143(1), seeking clarity on the timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills under Articles 200 and 201.

The Court held that under Article 200, a Governor has only three options when a Bill is presented: Grant assent, return it to the Assembly for reconsideration (if it is not a money Bill), or reserve it for the President’s consideration.

It ruled that the discharge of the Governor’s powers under Article 200 is not justiciable, thereby limiting judicial oversight in such decisions.

Significantly, the Supreme Court deprecated the “deemed assent” it had granted on April 8 in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, stating that such an order “amounts to virtually taking over the functions of a constitutional authority”. The bench said courts cannot step into the shoes of the Governor or President by declaring that assent is deemed to have been given.

While several states argued that delays by Governors had become politically motivated and therefore courts should specify outer limits, the SC said enforcing strict timelines would be contrary to the “elasticity” intentionally built into the Constitution.

“In a democratic country like ours, fixing timelines for Governors is against the elasticity provided by the Constitution,” the bench said.

The Presidential reference was made months after a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case laid down specific time limits for Governors and the President to act. The current Constitution Bench, however, clarified that it was not reviewing that judgment but only answering the constitutional questions raised by the reference.

States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal and Punjab had opposed the reference, saying the earlier judgment already settled the issue. On the other hand, the Union government, through Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that courts cannot prescribe timelines or create a deemed assent mechanism, as this would violate the separation of powers.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, KK Venugopal, Gopal Subramanium and Arvind Datar pushed for judicially mandated timelines, citing increasing delays by Governors as a political tactic. Senior advocates Harish Salve and Mahesh Jethmalani supported the Centre’s stand against fixed limits.