New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a landmark verdict, ruling out fixed timelines for Governors — and by extension, the President — to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. A five-judge constitutional bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, concluded that imposing strict deadlines would undermine the constitutional balance of power.
While the court rejected the notion of rigid timelines, it was careful not to grant Governors unfettered discretion. The bench emphasised that indefinite inaction can be challenged in exceptional situations. Under such circumstances, courts may intervene to ensure the legislative process is not frustrated, but they must respect the Governor’s decision-making role.
Importantly, the court dismissed the idea of “deemed assent” — meaning a Governor’s failure to act within a certain timeframe would not automatically convert a bill into law. The judges argued that such a remedy would diminish the constitutional role of Governors and the President.
Referring to Article 200, the bench reiterated that when a bill reaches the Governor, he has four options: grant assent, withhold it, return the bill with recommendations, or reserve it for the President. This constitutional discretion must be exercised with responsibility and accountability, not as a means to stall legislation indefinitely.
The court’s judgment overturns a previous two-judge ruling that had imposed a timeline of one to three months for Governors to act on bills. The earlier order had interpreted the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 as carrying an implicit urgency. But in its current ruling, the court said such deadlines amount to judicial overreach.
Along with its legal ruling, the bench appealed to Governors to adopt a spirit of “cooperative federalism.” Rather than delay bills by default, the court encouraged Governors to engage in dialogue with state legislatures when disagreements arise.
By striking a balance, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the constitutional independence of Governors while signalling that their power must not become a tool for obstruction.
