In a significant verdict delivered on Thursday, November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that fixed timelines cannot be imposed on Governors for granting assent to bills passed by state legislatures. However, the court also cautioned that prolonged and unexplained delays in clearing bills could invite judicial review. This ruling came in response to a special reference made by President Droupadi Murmu regarding the powers of Governors concerning actions on bills.
The five-judge Constitution bench, presided over by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, clarified that Governors have three options when a bill is presented to them: grant assent, send the bill back to the legislature for reconsideration, or reserve the bill for the President's consideration. The court emphasized that the Constitution does not allow for the concept of "deemed assent".
The Supreme Court also noted that while it cannot interfere in the merits of a Governor's decision, prolonged inaction that is unexplained and indefinite could warrant judicial intervention. In such instances, the courts could direct the Governor to make a decision within a reasonable timeframe. The court stated that Governors cannot sit on bills indefinitely and frustrate the legislative process.
The ruling effectively rolls back parts of an April ruling by a two-judge bench that had set a timeline for Governors to act on pending bills and prescribed a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills reserved for consideration. The Constitution bench stated that imposing timelines would be contrary to the elasticity carefully preserved in the Constitution, which allows constitutional authorities to perform their functions while keeping in mind the diverse contexts and the need for balancing in the law-making process in a federal and democratic country like India.
The court also clarified that Article 361 of the Constitution bars judicial review in relation to personally subjecting the Governor to judicial proceedings. However, this cannot negate the limited scope of judicial review in situations of prolonged inaction by the Governor under Article 200.
Legal experts have expressed mixed views on the Supreme Court's opinion. Some argue that the ruling respects the Governor's constitutional discretion and allows more space for dialogue, while others feel that a fixed timeline should be laid down to ensure bills do not remain stuck indefinitely. Some argue that keeping legislation pending indefinitely defeats the purpose of lawmaking.
