New Delhi, Nov 20: In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that timelines cannot be fixed for the governor and the President for giving assent to bills passed by state assemblies and the judiciary cannot also grant deemed assent to them.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai unanimously held that it would be against the interest of federalism, if the Governor without following due process under Article 200 (power to governor to provide assent to bills passed by assembly), is allowed to withhold bills.
The bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar said, “We don’t think governors have unfettered power to sit over bills passed by state assemblies”.
While answering the Presidential reference in which President Droupadi Murmu has sought the opinion of apex court under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution, the bench said that governors have three options — either to grant assent or send bills for reconsideration or refer them to the President.
It said in a democratic country like India, fixing timelines for governors is against elasticity provided by the Constitution.
The top court also deprecated the grant of “deemed assent” granted by the apex court on April 8 in the case of Tamil Nadu to the bills held by the state governor, saying it amounts to virtually taking over functions of constitutional authority.
The top court also ruled that the discharge of Governor’s power under Article 200 is not justiciable.
Mixed views from legal experts, Oppn leaders
Legal experts and leaders of some opposition-ruled states on Thursday expressed mixed views on the Supreme Court’s opinion on the Presidential Reference that no timelines can be prescribed for governors and the president in granting assent to bills passed by assemblies.
West Bengal Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee said a bill loses significance when it remains stuck without clarity, adding that he “personally feels” that a fixed timeline should be laid down for governors to clear bills. He argued that keeping legislation pending indefinitely defeats the purpose of lawmaking and leaves elected governments in limbo.
The ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu on Thursday termed the verdict of the Supreme Court on governors as a “good judgment” and that it would be useful in other cases involving powers of the gubernatorial post. Senior DMK leader T K S Elangovan said that if the state assembly elected by the people of Tamil Nadu had passed a resolution, the governor has to accept it.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary M A Baby said the Supreme Court’s response to the Presidential Reference on timelines to grant assent to bills was “deplorable and shocking”.
Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa said the ruling effectively rolls back the “rigid timelines” of three months for the constitutional functionaries imposed in April by a two-judge bench of the apex court.
“While the Supreme Court continues to guard against prolonged, unexplained and indefinite delays in clearing the bills, it duly respects the governor’s and president’s constitutional discretion — allowing more space for dialogue, rather than forcing every decision into a judicially mandated deadline,” he said.
Terming the opinion as a “corrective intervention”, Pahwa said the April 8 verdict had sought to curb the “pocket veto” or permanent inaction by the governors “but, in doing so, arguably pushed the judiciary into micromanaging constitutional actors”.
He said the opinion of the Constitution bench restores a more balanced approach.
On the fate of the 10 Tamil Nadu legislations, which were granted deemed assent by the top court on April 8 by exercising its plenary power under Article 142, senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari said all those bills have become laws and are already notified in the Gazette.
“The opinion rendered in the Presidential Reference will have no impact on the Acts which have already been notified in pursuance of the judgment dated April 8, 2025,” he said.
Justice J B Pardiwala-led bench on April 8 had granted deemed assent to 10 Tamil Nadu bills.
The bills, which have now become laws, included amendments to Tamil Nadu Fisheries University Act, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, Chennai University Act and Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act.
Tiwari said the April 8 verdict in Tamil Nadu case has attained finality. He referred to a judgment to buttress his point that the subsequent advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on a Presidential Reference cannot overturn the earlier judgment.
However, the apex court’s opinion referred to the views of Justice Y V Chandrachud in a 1978 Presidential Reference case in which he had held that all the courts are bound by the view expressed by the apex court “even in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143(1) of the Constitution”.
Advocate Ashwani Dubey said the core finding of the April 8 judgment which prescribed specific timelines has been set aside by the opinion.
“The ‘deemed assent’ granted by the apex court itself on the 10 Tamil Nadu bills via its Article 142 powers is likely void or significantly affected by the Constitution Bench’s ruling that ‘deemed assent’ is impermissible,” Dubey said. (PTI)
