NEW DELHI, Nov 21: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that neither Governors nor the President can be subjected to fixed timelines for granting assent to bills passed by state legislatures, setting aside an earlier judicial directive that prescribed a three-month limit. The Constitution, the court said, provides necessary “elasticity” in the exercise of these powers and does not permit the judiciary to impose rigid deadlines.
Delivering a unanimous verdict, a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai held that while Governors cannot indefinitely delay bills, the court cannot prescribe time-bound actions in the absence of express constitutional provisions. “We don’t think Governors have unfettered power to sit over bills passed by state assemblies,” the bench noted, clarifying that their options under Article 200 remain limited to three — granting assent, withholding assent with comments, or referring the bill to the President.
The ruling came in response to 14 constitutional questions referred to the apex court by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1), seeking clarity after a previous bench in April fixed a three-month deadline for clearing bills. The court emphasised that Article 142, which grants it wide equitable powers, cannot be invoked to create a doctrine of “deemed assent.”
The bench further underlined that constitutional authorities must act within the framework of the provisions laid out, but judicial substitution of the President’s or Governor’s discretion is impermissible. The judgment reinforces the limits of judicial intervention in legislative-executive procedures, marking a significant clarification on the powers of constitutional heads amid rising disputes between state governments and Raj Bhavans.
