The Court clarified that under Articles 200 and 201, which govern the assent of governors and the President to bills passed by state legislatures, there is no constitutionally mandated timeline; the phrase “as soon as possible” in the Constitution cannot be coercively interpreted by courts to create fixed deadlines. The bench rejected its own prior judgment delivered in April, which had imposed timelines and introduced the concept of “deemed assent”, declaring that earlier ruling to have “erred”. The bench held that inserting fixed deadlines where the constitutional text is silent would undermine the separation of powers inherent in the constitutional architecture.
In its opinion, the Court reaffirmed that a governor has three options when presented with a bill under Article 200: to grant assent, to withhold assent and return the bill to the assembly, or to reserve it for the President’s consideration. It held that the governor cannot employ an absolute veto, cannot sit on a bill indefinitely and must act within a decision-making framework that avoids unexplained, indefinite inaction — but the precise timing remains a matter of discretion, with judicial review available only for delay that is “prolonged, unexplained and indefinite”. The President likewise cannot be directed by courts to act within a specified timeframe in reserved-bill cases under Article 201.
The Court also explained its choice to avoid foreign jurisprudence. It observed that while comparative constitutional techniques can offer insight, the interpretation of India’s constitutional text must be rooted in its own traditions, institutional experience and federal-parliamentary model; the Court stated that the Westminster and American experiences of executive-legislative relations differ fundamentally from India’s scheme and cannot simply be imported. Consequently the bench adopted what it described as a “swadeshi interpretation” of constitutional provisions.
The judgement signals a shift in the Court’s approach to constitutional interpretation. Advocates of this shift see it as reinforcing national institutional autonomy and prioritising Indian jurisprudence over global academic appeal. Critics caution that dismissing foreign precedents may limit comparative legal enrichment and reduce the range of perspectives available in complex constitutional adjudication. Legal scholars note that the bench’s insistence on speaking in one voice — anonymising judgment authorship and presenting a unified bench view — echoes trends from prior landmark decisions such as the Ayodhya verdict.