Supreme Court Clarifies: No Fixed Timelines for Governors or President to Act on Bills, No Deemed Assent
Top Court says ‘Constitution does not imply automatic approval’; Reaffirms federal spirit between Centre and States
Ruling comes amid ongoing disputes between State Governments and Governors over pending legislation
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: Nov 20, 2025:
In a major constitutional ruling with far-reaching implications for Centre-State relations, the Supreme Court of India has held that there are no fixed timelines under the Constitution for a Governor or the President to act on Bills passed by State Legislatures. The Court has further clarified that there is no concept of “deemed assent” — meaning, if a Bill remains pending with the Governor or the President, it cannot be assumed to have automatically received approval after a certain period.
Also Read: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limits Legal Heirs’ Tax Liability, Quashes Attachment of Property
The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, delivered this crucial opinion in response to a Presidential Reference under Article 143. The reference sought clarification on the powers of Governors and the President in relation to State Bills, after several States had raised concerns over delays in gubernatorial assent.
### Background: The Reason for the Presidential Reference
Over the past few years, several State Governments — most notably Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Kerala, and West Bengal — have complained that their Governors were sitting indefinitely on Bills, refusing to either grant assent or return them with observations. This created political tension and raised questions about democratic functioning within States.
Also Read: Odisha High Court Orders Bank to Refund Money Taken From Husband’s Pension for Wife’s Loan Default
To address this growing constitutional issue, the President of India referred questions to the Supreme Court, asking whether the inaction of Governors or the President on State Bills could result in “deemed assent” and whether any time limits could be read into the constitutional scheme.
### What the Supreme Court Said
- No constitutional timeline: The Court held that the Constitution of India does not prescribe any specific time period within which the Governor or the President must act on a Bill. While the Court emphasized that constitutional authorities should not cause “undue delay,” it noted that any such time limit would have to be framed by the Parliament or the State Legislature, not by judicial interpretation.
- No ‘deemed assent’: The Bench explicitly stated that there is no provision in the Constitution that allows a Bill to be treated as assented merely because it has remained pending for a long time. According to the Court, “deemed assent” would violate the text and spirit of Articles 200 and 201, which lay down the procedure for granting or withholding assent to State Bills.
- Constitutional cooperation expected: The Supreme Court reminded both the Governors and State Governments to function within the federal spirit of the Constitution. It noted that while Governors act as the constitutional head of the State, their role is not to obstruct the legislative process but to ensure compliance with the law.
### Key Constitutional Provisions Explained
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor may take one of four possible actions when a Bill is presented:
- Grant assent;
- Withhold assent;
- Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President;
- Return the Bill (except money Bills) to the legislature for reconsideration.
Also Read: Major Change in Land Registry Rules: Two New Documents Now Mandatory for Property Registration
If the Bill is returned and passed again, the Governor is then constitutionally bound to grant assent. However, the Constitution remains silent on how long a Governor can take before making a decision.
Similarly, under Article 201, when a Bill is reserved for the President’s consideration, the President may either:
- Give or withhold assent;
- Direct the Governor to return the Bill to the legislature for reconsideration.
Again, the Constitution does not impose a time limit for this process.
### Court Warns Against Misuse of Constitutional Office
The Supreme Court observed that while the discretionary powers of Governors are important, they cannot be used to stall or undermine elected State Governments. “The Governor must remember that he is not an ombudsman over the legislature. His role is limited to constitutional oversight,” the Bench observed.
The Court also stressed that such constitutional silence on timelines should not be misinterpreted as a license for indefinite inaction. “Constitutional functionaries are expected to act with responsibility, promptness, and respect for democratic outcomes,” the judgment said.
### Impact on Centre-State Relations
This ruling is expected to bring greater clarity on the powers and functions of Governors and the President in the law-making process. However, it may also reignite the larger political debate on the balance of power between the Union and States.
Legal experts believe the Court’s decision reaffirms the federal character of India’s Constitution while restricting judicial overreach. “By refusing to impose timelines, the Supreme Court has preserved the original constitutional design. But by emphasizing constitutional morality, it has also reminded Governors of their limits,” said constitutional scholar Prof. Faizan Mustafa.
Several States have welcomed the ruling, calling it a “much-needed” judicial clarification.
### Political Reactions
Leaders from various regional parties, including those in South India, have described the judgment as a “victory for democracy”. They argue that Governors, often seen as political appointees, should act swiftly and respect the will of elected governments.
Opposition parties accused Governors of using delays as a political strategy to block progressive legislation in areas like education, health, and administration reforms.
On the other hand, members of the ruling coalition at the Centre have said that the ruling “clearly upholds constitutional supremacy” and ensures that both Governors and States operate according to the rule of law.
### Legal Experts Welcome Clarity
Several constitutional lawyers have hailed the judgment for bringing stability to constitutional interpretation. Senior advocate Indira Jaising stated that while the absence of timelines may seem problematic, “the emphasis on constitutional morality ensures Governors cannot act arbitrarily.”
Another lawyer, Arvind Datar, noted that the Court was careful to avoid setting new procedural constraints that might create “conflict between the judiciary and the executive.”
### Conclusion: A Reminder of Cooperative Federalism
The judgment underscores the need for party-neutral constitutional behaviour and cooperative federalism. It ensures that States continue to make laws in their spheres without interference while the Governors act as impartial guardians of the Constitution.
Ultimately, the Court’s ruling is a message to all constitutional authorities — follow the law, respect institutions, and act within the boundaries of responsibility.
The absence of a defined timeline may appear to keep Governors powerful, but the Supreme Court’s words make it clear: Discretion must never mean delay.