SUPREME COURT (PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE): NO FIXED TIMELINES FOR GOVERNOR/PRESIDENT’S ASSENT; ‘DEEMED ASSENT’ HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS:

In response to a Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court on November 20 delivered a significant opinion clarifying the powers of the Governor and the President regarding assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201. The Court held that no judicially imposed timelines can be prescribed for these constitutional authorities to decide on granting assent. It further clarified that the concept of “deemed assent” in case of delay has no constitutional foundation and would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Court observed that treating prolonged delay as “deemed consent” would effectively amount to the judiciary taking over powers specifically assigned to the Governor or the President. It explained that substituting executive decisions with judicial pronouncements would not be permissible within the constitutional framework. At the same time, the Court recognized a narrow scope for judicial intervention: if there is prolonged, unexplained, or indefinite inaction by the Governor that frustrates the legislative process, the Court may issue a limited direction requiring the Governor to act within a reasonable period, without commenting on the merits of the Bill.

A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice AS Chandurkar heard the matter and reserved its opinion in September. The reference was prompted by an earlier two-judge bench judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which had laid down specific timelines for the President and Governor to act on Bills. The Presidential Reference raised fourteen questions, which the Court addressed in detail.

On the options available to a Governor under Article 200, the Court explained that the Governor may assent to a Bill, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President. However, withholding assent necessarily requires returning the Bill to the Legislative Assembly, as stated in the first proviso to Article 200. The Court rejected the Union Government’s contention that the Governor may indefinitely withhold assent without returning the Bill, noting that such an interpretation would undermine federalism.

The Court further held that while Governors normally act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, Article 200 grants them discretion when deciding whether to return or reserve a Bill. However, although the exercise of this discretion is not subject to merits-based judicial review, the Court may intervene in cases of extreme inaction.

Regarding Article 361, the Court clarified that although the Governor enjoys personal immunity, this does not bar the judiciary from exercising limited review over the functioning of the office in cases of undue delay.

The Court then addressed issues relating to both Articles 200 and 201 together. It held that the elasticity built into these provisions prevents the imposition of strict timelines on either the Governor or the President. The President is also not bound to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 whenever a Bill is reserved; such a reference is discretionary.

The Court concluded that Governor and President’s decisions on Bills cannot be challenged before they become law, and Article 142 cannot be used to replace the constitutional procedure or introduce concepts such as “deemed assent.” It reiterated that no State law can come into force without the Governor’s assent, as required under Article 200.