New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that no time limit can be imposed on the Governor or the President for granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
Delivering a unanimous verdict, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai held that introducing the idea of “deemed assent” goes against the structure of the Constitution and undermines the separation of powers. Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar were also part of the Bench.
The court noted that the framers of the Constitution intentionally designed Articles 200 and 201 with flexibility. Imposing a strict timeline, the Bench said, would violate this intention. “The concept of deemed assent presupposes a replacement of constitutional authority. It is contrary to the constitutional scheme,” CJI Gavai observed while reading the judgment.
The Bench clarified that the Supreme Court cannot use Article 142 to override or replace the constitutional powers of the Governor or the President. It added that the assent of the Governor cannot be substituted or presumed by judicial intervention.
Reiterating the Governor’s three constitutional choices—granting assent, sending the Bill to the President, or returning it to the Assembly—the court said that if a Governor chooses to withhold assent, the Bill must be sent back to the Legislature.
Emphasising limited judicial authority, the Bench said the courts cannot question the decision-making powers of the Governor or the President at the assent stage. However, it may intervene if there is an unexplained or excessive delay.
The Bench also clarified that the President cannot seek the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 every time a Bill is reserved. The court’s opinion in such references is not binding either on the President or universally under Article 141. Even if the Supreme Court declines to answer a reference, it must state its reasons.
After announcing the verdict, the CJI acknowledged the assistance of senior lawyers during the hearings. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta thanked the Bench on behalf of President Droupadi Murmu, who had referred 14 constitutional questions to the court on August 19 regarding the powers of Governors and the President.
This reference was prompted by the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment that struck down Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent on ten re-enacted Bills, calling his actions “illegal and erroneous.” The Centre later sought a review of the ruling, contending that it did not correctly reflect constitutional principles.
The Bench concluded hearings in September after ten days of detailed arguments from Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Mehta, and several senior lawyers representing various state governments.
