‘President, Governors Not Bound by Clock’: SC Says Courts Can Step In Against ‘Indefinite’ Delays on Stalled Bills

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that neither Governors nor the President of India can be bound by fixed timelines for granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

The Court also categorically rejected the concept of “deemed assent”, calling it a constitutional impossibility that would amount to substituting the role of high constitutional offices. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar heard the matter for 10 days.

It held that the scheme of Articles 200 and 201 intentionally carries “elasticity” and that courts cannot judicially impose timeframes. “Deemed assent is virtually a takeover of functions of a constitutional authority and antithetical to the separation of powers,” the CJI said.

Three Options For Governor, No Power To Withhold Assent Simpliciter

Clarifying long-standing confusion around gubernatorial powers, the Supreme Court held that a Governor has only three constitutionally valid choices when a Bill is presented:

1. Grant assent
2.  Reserve the Bill for consideration of the President
3. Withhold assent and return the Bill to the legislature

The Court rejected the Union's argument that a Governor has a fourth option, “withholding assent simpliciter”, noting that such a reading would undermine federalism and bypass the mandatory requirement of returning a Bill unless it is a money Bill.

The Bench stressed that when two interpretations are possible, the one preserving “constitutional harmony” must prevail. Allowing Governors to indefinitely withhold Bills without returning them would “distort the federal balance”. Interpreting the phrase “in his discretion” in Article 200, the Court held that the Governor does enjoy limited discretion, but only in exercising the three available options. This discretion, however, does not permit inaction.

Judicial Review Limited But Not Barred

While reiterating that the discharge of functions by the Governor or President at the Bill stage is generally non-justiciable, the court carved out a narrow window for intervention.

If a Governor or the President engages in prolonged, unexplained, or indefinite delay, constitutional courts may issue a “limited direction” compelling them to act without examining the merits of the Bill.

“There cannot be two executive powers in the state. The elected government must be in the driver’s seat,” the CJI observed, underscoring that gubernatorial positions cannot be allowed to paralyse legislative functioning.

President Not Bound To Seek Review Under Article 143

The Court also clarified that the President is not obligated to seek advisory opinions every time a Governor reserves a Bill. The President may do so only if deemed necessary.

Concluding the pronouncement, the Chief Justice noted that the opinion of the Bench was unanimous.

Dispute Origin: TN Government vs Governor RN Ravi

The Tamil Nadu government filed a plea contesting Governor RN Ravi's choice to send the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025, to the President rather than giving his own assent.

The Supreme Court promised to make a decision on the matter by November 21 and directed the Tamil Nadu government to wait for its ruling in October. A Governor cannot propose a Bill to the President after getting the "aid and advice" of the Council of Ministers, according to senior attorney Abhishek Singhvi.

President Seeks Clarification

President Droupadi Murmu used Article 143(1) in May to ask the Supreme Court to rule on whether judges have the authority to impose deadlines on the President when she must take action on Bills enacted by the state assembly. She presented 14 questions in a five-page reference to get clarification on the President's and Governors' responsibilities under Articles 200 and 201.

In its written response, the Centre argued that "constitutional disorder" could result from one arm of government assuming powers not authorised by the Constitution due to set timetables for the President or Governors.

ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Rule on Presidential Reference Tomorrow Amid Row Over Governors’ Powers on State Bills