Court affirms President and Governors hold no fixed bill timeline

The Supreme Court of India affirmed that the President and state Governors cannot be subject to predetermined timelines when deciding on legislation, underscoring that judicial review only becomes available once a bill becomes law or is clearly obstructed. A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, delivered its ruling in response to a presidential reference, clarifying that courts cannot issue directives imposing specific deadlines on constitutional functionaries in the legislative assent process.

The case originates from earlier events in the state of Tamil Nadu, where the Governor kept ten bills pending without decision and reserved them for presidential consideration after the legislature had re-passed them. In April this year, a division bench of the Court found that such indefinite delay amounted to a “pocket veto” and set out timelines: the Governor must act within one month if withholding assent on ministerial advice, within three months if acting against advice, and the President must act within three months of first re-presentation of the bill. That judgment also rendered the ten bills in question as deemed-assented under its extraordinary powers. However, the new reference asked whether courts have the authority to set such time-limits in the first place.

In the most recent hearing, the Bench held that although inaction by the Governor or President may be subject to judicial scrutiny, it is for the executive and legislative branches to determine how and when the discretion is exercised. The Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, argued that prescribing deadlines would upset the separation of powers and that the Constitution itself does not confer a specific timeframe for assent under Articles 200 and 201. The Court responded by noting that isolated instances of delay cannot permit a blanket rule, and that any judicial intervention must respect the original scheme of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Gavai emphasised that “all three pillars of the Constitution are equal” and the Rule of Law demands that each perform its role without crowding out the others. The Court declared its role is limited to answering the questions posed in the presidential reference and it will not revisit the correctness of the April judgment or determine whether it should have been referred to a larger bench.

Opposition-ruled state governments had challenged the legislative validity of timelines, arguing that the interim timelines disrupted federal balance and imperilled executive functioning. Supporters of the original April ruling argued that indefinite delay in assent undermines democratic accountability and governance, since a legislature’s passed bills may be stalled indefinitely at the discretion of the Governor.