'Cannot sit on bills indefinitely, but...': Supreme Court's big guideline for Governors

Supreme Court said that Governors cannot hold state bills indefinitely but refused to set timelines, citing separation of powers.

A constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that governors and the President cannot be bound to any judicially imposed timelines for acting on state bills, ruling that such directions would breach separation of powers and distort the constitutional design.

SC says Governors cannot hold state bills indefinitely but refuses to set timelines (HT Photo)

The court, at the same time, clarified that while their decisions under Articles 200 and 201 (acting on bills) are generally non-justiciable, prolonged and deliberate inaction by a governor may invite limited judicial scrutiny, allowing courts to direct the governor only to choose one of the constitutionally available options without examining the merits of the bill.

Delivering the advisory opinion on a rare presidential reference, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai, speaking for the unanimous five-judge bench, said that although governors are ordinarily expected to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers, the Constitution also envisages limited areas of discretion.

It would therefore be “unfathomable”, the court held, to interpret Article 200 as strictly binding governors to ministerial advice when returning a bill or reserving it for the President — actions that, by their nature, require independent constitutional judgment.

The bench also comprised justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar. This is the first presidential reference matter in several years and one with far-reaching implications for Centre-state relations. Though advisory opinions under Article 143 are not binding, they hold significant constitutional authority and influence executive and political conduct. The court has historically circumscribed its own role in such references, declining to revisit settled law (as in the Cauvery reference), expand the scope of the President’s questions (as in the Kerala Education Bill case), or decide issues that overlap with pending litigation (as in the Ayodhya reference). In today’s opinion, the court reaffirmed those boundaries while offering clarity on the scope of judicial intervention in the assent process.

The bench began by examining the options available to governors under Articles 200 and 201. CJI Gavai noted that while states argued that only three choices exist — assent, withhold, or reserve for the President — the provision must be read in a manner that promotes “constitutional dialogue” and preserves the federal structure. The first proviso to Article 200, he said, embodies this deliberative spirit and cannot be mechanically constrained.

Turning to the core question before the court as to whether timelines could be imposed, the bench was unequivocal. “Imposition of timelines will be antithetical to constitutional boundaries and will trample upon separation of powers,” CJI Gavai said. The bench rejected the proposition that courts could judicially fill constitutional silences by prescribing fixed periods for gubernatorial or presidential action. It also held that there cannot be a concept of "deemed assent" to state bills because that would defeat the constitutional provisions entrusting governors and Presidents with specific roles.

On the justiciability of such decisions, the bench held that the discharge of functions under Articles 200 and 201 is not subject to judicial review, and that courts cannot examine bills prior to their becoming law.

The President, the court added, is not required to approach the judiciary for guidance every time a bill is reserved. However, indefinite stalling of a bill could justify limited judicial intervention, since the “will of the people expressed through the legislature cannot be completely defeated.” In such circumstances, courts may issue a limited mandamus directing the governor only to exercise one of the options available under Article 200, but cannot dictate which option is to be chosen.

The bench stressed that this framework does not reduce the governor to a “rubber stamp”. But equally, it does not permit courts to supplant constitutional discretion with judicial command. The delicate balance, the court said, lies in ensuring checks against deliberate inaction without trenching upon the independence of constitutional offices.

The advisory opinion comes more than two months after the Court reserved its views on September 11, following ten days of extensive hearings. The reference was initiated by President Droupadi Murmu in May under Article 143, prompted by a two-judge judgment delivered on April 8 in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu. That ruling had fixed strict deadlines — one month for Governors to act on re-enacted bills, and three months for presidential assent, and invoked Article 142 to “deem” ten Tamil Nadu bills as assented to.

President Murmu sought clarity on 14 constitutional questions, ranging from whether timelines could be imposed, whether the governor’s or President’s decisions are judicially reviewable, whether “deemed assent” is constitutionally permissible, and whether Article 142 can override express constitutional provisions. Several states, including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Telangana and Karnataka, opposed reopening the April ruling, contending that Article 143 cannot be used to revisit judicial precedent.

The Constitution bench’s opinion effectively holds that the April 8 judgment of the two-judge bench did not lay down the correct law and cannot be cited as a precedent in light of Thursday’s authoritative pronouncement.

The hearings also saw Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argue that the April 8 judgment “does not lay down the correct law” and should not operate as binding precedent. The Attorney General added that the Court cannot remodel Article 200 to make it “look better,” emphasising that gubernatorial discretion is integral to the constitutional structure. Senior counsel for the states countered that prolonged gubernatorial inaction has real effects on governance and democratic accountability, and that judicial oversight is essential to prevent constitutional paralysis.

The bench had observed during the hearings that while courts may require a Governor to take a decision within a reasonable time, they cannot dictate the outcome of that decision — a distinction that finds clear reflection in today’s ruling.