Supreme Court Bars Time Limit On The President & Governors For Deciding On Bills

The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench has delivered a significant ruling, stating that courts cannot impose a time limit on the President or Governors when deciding on Bills passed by State Legislatures.

The verdict reinforces the constitutional framework that grants discretionary powers to these offices in the legislative process.

A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Atul S Chandurkar delivered the decision.

The Bench declared unconstitutional the earlier two-judge judgment delivered in connection with the Tamil Nadu government’s case, which had suggested that timelines could be prescribed.

The Bench emphasised that Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution do not envisage any fixed timeframe for the President or Governors to decide on Bills.

According to the judgment, enforcing such deadlines would undermine the intent of the Constitution’s framers.

Presidential Reference and Key Questions

The judgment came in response to a Presidential Reference asking whether constitutional courts could prescribe time limits for Governors and the President to approve, withhold, or return Bills passed by State Legislatures.

After ten days of hearings, the Bench reserved its verdict and delivered a clear interpretation:

• Courts cannot bind the President or Governors to a timeframe while exercising their constitutional duties.

Constitutional Options for Governors

The Court reiterated that Governors have three options under Article 200:

• Grant assent to the Bill,
• Return the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration, or
• Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.

However, the Bench clarified that if a Bill returned for reconsideration is passed again by the Assembly, the Governor must give assent.

The Court also stressed that Governors are not merely rubber stamps, but constitutional authorities entrusted with important responsibilities.

Addressing concerns about delays, the Bench held that the Supreme Court itself cannot assume the Governor’s role by approving a Bill on its own.

Setting deadlines or giving deemed assent would amount to judicial overreach.

Centre and States Present Divergent Views

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and several Governors, argued against setting timelines, stating that the judiciary is not a ‘headmaster’ supervising all political processes.

He maintained that only the President and Governors can approve Bills, not the courts.

The Centre’s written submission emphasised that Articles 200 and 201 deliberately avoid prescribing timelines to allow thorough constitutional scrutiny.

Goa and Puducherry, in their submissions, argued that even under Article 142, the Supreme Court cannot grant deemed assent to Bills.

The Court concluded that while Governors should act ‘as early as possible’, courts cannot dictate deadlines nor step into their constitutional role.

The decision preserves the balance between the executive and legislature and upholds constitutional propriety.

Also Read: CJI BR Gavai Strikes Down Key Tribunal Reforms Act Provisions; Slams Repeated Legislative Violations