SC: No Timelines for Governor to Clear Bills, but Can't Let Bills Stay Pending in Perpetuity

 New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that no timelines can be imposed on Governors or the President for granting assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies. The court stressed that while Governors have discretion under the Constitution, they do not have “unfettered powers” to let Bills remain pending “in perpetuity.” It added that “prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction” by a Governor could invite limited judicial scrutiny.

The Bench reiterated: “The Governor has no option to indefinitely withhold a Bill. However, the Court cannot prescribe timelines.” “The initiation of a dialogic process under Articles 200 and 201 is advisory, deliberative and consultative — and cannot be subject to judicial review.”

The court underlined that the “dialogic process” between Governors, Presidents and State legislatures is an integral part of India’s federal structure. It added that treating the return, reservation or assent of a Bill as justiciable, before it becomes law, would create an “unfathomable constitutional consequence” and open new grounds to challenge legislation.

Delivering its long-awaited opinion, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai said the Supreme Court cannot invoke its plenary powers under Article 142 to grant deemed assent, as doing so would amount to taking over the role of a separate constitutional authority.

The unanimous opinion came in response to Presidential Reference No. 1 of 2025 titled “In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governors and the President of India”. President Droupadi Murmu had asked whether constitutional courts could fix timelines for the Governor or President to act on Bills. This was the 16th Presidential reference to the Supreme Court since the Constitution came into force in 1950.

The court held: “While the merits of the Governor’s action under Article 200 cannot be examined, prolonged and indefinite inaction will attract limited judicial scrutiny… Courts may issue a direction to the Governor to act under Article 200 within a reasonable time, without commenting on the merits of the discretion exercised.”

The judgment also clarified that Governors have only three options under Article 200, grant assent, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. They cannot withhold assent simpliciter, nor can they indefinitely delay a Bill.

The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, said judicially imposed timelines would violate the “elasticity” the Constitution affords to constitutional authorities. Articles 200 and 201 intentionally do not prescribe time limits, the court noted.

The ruling comes amid repeated confrontations between Governors and Opposition-ruled States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Punjab over delayed assent to Bills. Earlier, in April, a two-judge bench had held that 10 Bills returned by the Tamil Nadu Governor were deemed to have received assent, invoking Article 142. The Constitution Bench said this was impermissible.

“Deemed assent after a judicially set timeline would amount to the Judiciary substituting the executive role of the Governor or the President,” the court held.

The Bench also pointed out that the author judge’s name had been omitted, a rare practice also seen in the 2019 Ayodhya judgment. CJI Gavai is set to retire on Sunday.

In another key finding, the court held that the Governor’s discretion in dealing with Bills is not dependent on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, although it is limited by constitutional principles.