In a significant verdict concerning the powers and limitations of constitutional authorities, the Supreme Court of India ruled on Thursday, November 20, 2025, that fixed timelines cannot be imposed on Governors for granting assent to bills passed by state assemblies. A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, delivered the unanimous decision, settling a presidential reference that had sought clarity on the extent to which courts can mandate deadlines for constitutional functionaries in the legislative process.
The court emphasized that imposing strict timelines would be against the spirit of federalism and would encroach upon the separation of powers doctrine, a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, clarified that the constitutional courts cannot grant "deemed assent" to bills pending before a Governor. The concept of deemed assent, the court stated, would amount to the judiciary taking over executive functions, which is impermissible.
The ruling emerged from a reference made by the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, under Article 143 of the Constitution. The President's query centered on whether a Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising their options regarding a bill presented for assent under Article 200. The court acknowledged the Governor's discretion in deciding whether to grant assent to bills. The Governor can either grant assent, withhold assent with a reason to be communicated, or refer the bill to the President for consideration.
While ruling out fixed timelines, the Supreme Court also made it clear that Governors cannot indefinitely delay acting on bills passed by state legislatures. The court observed that prolonged or unexplained delays that frustrate the legislative process could invite judicial review. In such instances, the court can direct the Governor to decide on the bill within a reasonable time frame.
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of dialogue and cooperation in India's federal structure. Governors, the court noted, should adopt a process of dialogue with the legislature to address any concerns regarding a bill, rather than resorting to obstructionist tactics. The court also negated the view that the President should seek the Supreme Court's opinion on the constitutionality of a bill reserved for their consideration by the Governor. The Supreme Court underscored that it cannot unconstitutionally take over the powers of Governors and the President. While the Governor cannot be held personally liable for their decisions, the constitutional courts retain the power to scrutinize those decisions.
