New Delhi: In a significant clarification of constitutional boundaries, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that constitutional courts cannot prescribe timelines for Governors or the President while they decide on state bills. Delivering a unanimous advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai held that such judicial directions violate the separation of powers and amount to encroachment into executive authority.
The reference stemmed from recent confrontations between opposition-ruled states and Governors, especially in Tamil Nadu, where a two-judge bench had earlier directed the Governor to decide on pending bills within specified deadlines and even invoked Article 142 to grant “deemed assent” to ten bills. The Constitution Bench categorically overruled these directions, calling them unconstitutional and beyond judicial authority.
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, held that Articles 200 and 201 provide Governors with three clear options: grant assent, withhold assent and return the bill, or reserve it for the President. The Court emphasized that there is no fourth option of indefinite inaction, but equally stressed that courts cannot impose strict time limits or compel assent.
While refusing to judicially create deadlines, the Court acknowledged that prolonged and unexplained delays by a Governor may invite limited scrutiny. It said that constitutional courts may issue a mandamus directing the Governor to take a decision within a “reasonable period,” but cannot dictate the nature of that decision. The bench underlined that Governors cannot act in a manner that frustrates the objectives of a duly passed bill, and must follow a cooperative approach with the state legislature.
In another crucial clarification, the Constitution Bench held that the President cannot be compelled to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on the constitutionality of a bill reserved for her consideration, rejecting a view expressed by the earlier two-judge bench.
The Court further reiterated that the use of Article 142 to grant “deemed assent” was impermissible, as it effectively allowed the judiciary to override constitutionally vested executive powers. Such an approach, the bench held, would amount to taking over the functions of the Governor or President, which is fundamentally at odds with India’s constitutional scheme.
Both Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Kapil Sibal welcomed the judgment. While Mehta called it an “illuminating” clarification on behalf of the Union government and the President, Sibal described the opinion as thoughtful and balanced.
