New Delhi: Background of the case
The Supreme Court is currently examining a Presidential Reference under Article 143 on whether timelines can be imposed for Governors and the President to act on bills passed by legislatures. The reference was made after the Court’s April 2025 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, where a division bench introduced timelines and a concept of “deemed assent” for delayed bills.
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar is hearing the matter.
Court’s observations
The Bench has emphasised that individual delays in clearing bills by Governors or the President cannot justify a blanket timeline for all. The judges cautioned that introducing such deadlines could amount to rewriting the Constitution, since Articles 200 and 201 provide no such fixed limits.
The Court also raised the question of enforceability—if deadlines were imposed, could non-compliance result in contempt of court? One argument raised was that “deemed assent” should automatically apply, though the judges noted this too has constitutional implications.
Arguments presented
Senior advocates representing states such as Tamil Nadu and West Bengal highlighted that indefinite withholding of bills undermines the mandate of elected governments, effectively rendering them powerless. Others stressed that while Governors are bound to act on ministerial advice, they also retain some degree of discretion in exceptional situations.
The Bench observed that giving Governors unlimited discretion would risk making elected governments dysfunctional, but imposing rigid deadlines could equally amount to judicial overreach.
Wider constitutional significance
The case has reopened debate on the delicate balance between executive authority, legislative power, and judicial oversight. It has also underscored the role of Governors in India’s federal structure, especially in politically sensitive situations where delay in assent has been perceived as undermining state governments.
The Court noted that while speedy decision-making is essential, the remedy for delays should ideally be case-specific litigation rather than a universal deadline.
Conclusion
The hearings reflect the Court’s cautious approach in ensuring that governance is not obstructed by indefinite delays while also respecting the separation of powers. The eventual opinion of the Constitution Bench is expected to set a precedent for how executive inaction on legislative bills will be addressed in the future.