Supreme Court Constitution Bench rules that timelines for Governors or President to assent to Bills cannot be imposed, rejecting deemed assent and reaffirming constitutional discretion.
Case in News
Timelines For Bill Assent Cannot Be Judicially Imposed reviewed by the Supreme Court in the Presidential Reference on Bills .
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Case Name
In Re : Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India (Presidential Reference)
Case Overview
The Supreme Court, led by CJI BR Gavai with Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar, answered a Presidential Reference issued under Article 143 . The reference followed concerns from multiple States about delays by Governors and the President on Bills presented for assent under Articles 200 and 201 . The Court examined whether it can impose timelines or declare “deemed assent” when constitutional authorities delay decisions . After a ten-day hearing, the Constitution Bench clarified the scope of constitutional discretion and judicial review regarding bill assent .
Step into the world of justice withCourtroom Chronicles
Key Aspects
Before delving into legal questions, the dispute highlights conflicts between elected governments and gubernatorial discretion . The central issue was whether judicially fixed timelines compromise constitutional balance and federalism .
- Reference raised 14 constitutional queries on Articles 200 and 201 .
- States argued delays by some Governors obstruct legislative functioning .
- Union opposed judicial timelines, calling it a violation of separation of powers .
- Debate on whether “withholding assent” requires returning the Bill to the Legislature .
- Question raised whether courts can mandate “deemed assent” or review pre-enactment decisions .
Legal Insights
Understanding constitutional provisions is vital to assess the limits of judicial intervention .
- Article 200 of Constitution of India– Governor may assent, withhold, or reserve the Bill; withholding requires returning the Bill .
- Article 201 – President may assent or withhold; discretionary power not bound by timelines .
- Article 143 – Enables Presidential references for Supreme Court opinion .
- Article 361 – Personal immunity for Governor/President but office actions can face limited judicial review .
- Article 142 – Cannot be used to create “deemed assent”; Court cannot substitute constitutional functions .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court held that no judicially fixed timelines can be imposed on the Governor or the President under Articles 200 and 201 . Declaring “deemed assent” would amount to the judiciary taking over executive powers, violating separation of powers . However, in cases of prolonged, unexplained inaction, courts may issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to decide without commenting on merits . The Court reaffirmed that pre-enactment decisions under Articles 200/201 are not justiciable, and constitutional discretion cannot be judicially substituted .
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice.
Read also-Constitution of India
Source-Supreme Court of India
