New Delhi – The Supreme Court Of India delivered a landmark governor bill assent ruling on Thursday through a five-judge Constitution bench, declaring that governors and the President cannot be bound by judicially imposed timelines when granting assent to state legislation. This significant verdict addresses critical questions about constitutional discretion and the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive branches.
Nullification of Previous Verdict
The governor bill assent ruling specifically nullifies an April 8 decision by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu case that had established strict timelines for gubernatorial assent and introduced the concept of “deemed assent” in cases of inordinate delays. The Constitution bench determined that the previous decision created substantial confusion and doubt requiring an authoritative opinion from a larger bench.
The earlier verdict had imposed a one-month deadline for governors to act on re-enacted bills and created a three-month timeline for bills reserved for presidential consideration. The current governor bill assent ruling found these mandates inconsistent with both constitutional text and established precedent, concluding that such judicial action violated the fundamental principle of separation of powers.
Constitutional Framework and Discretionary Powers
The governor bill assent ruling clarifies that the Constitution envisages a carefully balanced structure for processing state legislation that does not permit courts to impose procedural timelines on constitutional authorities. The bench emphasized that Articles 200 and 201 grant governors and the President defined, textually rooted discretion that cannot be disturbed by externally crafted time-bound mandates.
Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, along with justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, delivered this advisory opinion under Article 143. The governor bill assent ruling established that importing judicial timelines would effectively rewrite the Constitution rather than interpret it within its established framework.
Three Constitutional Options for Governors
According to the governor bill assent ruling, when presented with a bill, governors have three constitutionally authorized choices: granting assent, withholding assent and returning the bill (provided it is not a money bill), or reserving the bill for presidential consideration. The bench emphasized that returning a bill with comments constitutes part of a “constitutional dialogue” meant to promote deliberation rather than confrontation.
The governor bill assent ruling specifically clarified that governors “cannot withhold assent simpliciter” without invoking the process of returning the bill. Even after a legislature re-enacts a bill following reconsideration, governors retain two options—granting assent or reserving it for the President. The notion that reconsideration eliminates these options was declared contrary to constitutional text and structure.
Also Read: Al-Falah University Blast Probe: Shocking SIT Investigation Reveals Campus Links
Limited Scope of Judicial Review
While the governor bill assent ruling establishes that discharge of functions under Articles 200 and 201 is “non-justiciable,” it acknowledges that courts may intervene in specific circumstances. Where prolonged, deliberate inaction occurs, courts may issue limited direction requiring a governor to exercise one of the three constitutionally prescribed options, without dictating which option to choose.
The governor bill assent ruling drew a firm line regarding judicial review scope. Courts cannot test the merits of a governor’s or President’s decision under Articles 200 and 201, nor can they examine the legality of bills before they ripen into law. Judicial review extends only to cases where bills are held in abeyance through prolonged and deliberate inaction.
Preservation of Separation of Powers
The governor bill assent ruling reaffirmed fundamental constitutional principles by preventing judicial overreach into executive domains. The bench explained that while the governor ordinarily acts on the aid and advice of the council of ministers, the Constitution contemplates situations where discretion must be exercised independently, with Article 200 being one such provision.
The court warned that while gubernatorial discretion is not unfettered, it cannot be reduced to a purely “perfunctory” role. The governor bill assent ruling struck a balance by acknowledging that governors serve more than ceremonial functions while ensuring their powers remain subject to constitutional constraints rather than judicial micromanagement.
Presidential Reference and Key Questions
The governor bill assent ruling responded to a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 in May, seeking clarity on whether the Supreme Court can set binding timelines for gubernatorial or presidential assent. The reference placed 14 significant questions before the Court, addressing whether silence in Articles 200 and 201 can be judicially filled by imposing procedural timelines.
Among these questions, the governor bill assent ruling declined to answer three, determining they fell outside the functional scope of inquiry into constitutional roles. The bench refused to address questions regarding Article 145(3) on bench composition, Union-state dispute adjudication outside Article 131, and broadly framed questions about powers under Article 142.
Implications for Federal Relations
The governor bill assent ruling has significant implications for federal relations in India’s constitutional framework. While it may have reiterated separation of powers principles, it leaves the federal debate open, particularly in a politicized environment where some states claim governors function as agents of the Union government.
For states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Telangana, and Karnataka that complained about gubernatorial inaction, the governor bill assent ruling offers limited relief. The bench acknowledged that indefinite stalling of bills cannot defeat democratic governance, and where the people’s will expressed through the legislature is frustrated by absence of decision, courts may intervene in a limited manner.
Constitutional Dialogue and Deliberation
The governor bill assent ruling emphasized that Articles 168, 200, and 201 together reflect a dialogic model of federal functioning. This model contemplates deliberation between governors, the President, and legislatures rather than mechanical endorsement or veto processes. Returning bills with comments and reserving them for presidential consideration are integral features ensuring questions of constitutional validity, federal implications, or inter-state effects receive proper attention.
The verdict establishes that imposing judicial timelines disregards this deliberative scheme and risks reducing complex constitutional functions into inflexible administrative timetables, ultimately undermining the nuanced balance the Constitution’s framers intended to create.
