New Delhi, November 20, 2025 – In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that constitutional courts cannot impose fixed timelines on Governors and the President for granting assent to bills passed by state legislatures, deeming such directives "impermissible" and against the spirit of the Constitution. The ruling was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai.
The verdict came in response to a presidential reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking clarity on whether courts could mandate time-bound action under Articles 200 and 201. This move followed an earlier ruling regarding the Tamil Nadu Governor's handling of bills passed by the state government, where a two-judge bench had prescribed deadlines for Governors to act on pending legislation. The President's reference included 14 questions regarding the scope of Articles 200 and 201, including whether Governors are bound by ministerial advice when exercising their options under Article 200.
The Supreme Court emphasized that imposing rigid timelines on constitutional functionaries like the President and Governors would be "self-defeating" and an overreach of judicial power. The bench also stated that courts cannot grant "deemed assent" to bills pending before a Governor, as this would amount to the judiciary taking over functions constitutionally assigned to the executive. The court noted that the use of Article 142 by the previous two-judge bench to deem assent for 10 Tamil Nadu bills was beyond constitutional limits.
However, the Supreme Court also made it clear that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills. The court observed that "endless inaction" by the Governor is impermissible. It stated that prolonged or unexplained delays in granting assent, which effectively frustrate the legislative process, could invite judicial review. In such cases, the court can exercise its power to direct the Governor to decide on the bills in a time-bound manner, without commenting on the merits of the bill.
The court underscored the importance of dialogue and consultation between the Governor and the state legislature to address concerns regarding pending bills. It suggested that Governors should adopt a process of dialogue with the legislature to address concerns over a bill rather than follow an obstructionist approach. The Supreme Court advocated for constitutional collaboration and consultation, emphasizing that India's system of cooperative federalism requires both parties to engage constructively.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union, had argued against judicially imposed timelines, stating that the constitutional phrase "as soon as possible" was deliberately chosen to allow for context-sensitive action. He also cautioned against the use of a writ of Mandamus against a Governor, arguing that it would violate the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court's judgment seeks to strike a balance between the Governor's discretionary powers and the need for timely decisions on legislative matters. While the court has ruled out fixed deadlines, it has also asserted that Governors cannot simply sit on bills indefinitely. The decision reinforces the importance of dialogue, cooperation, and adherence to constitutional principles in Centre-state relations.
