The Supreme Court of India on Thursday issued a significant constitutional clarification, stating that Governors and the President cannot be required to follow judicially imposed timelines while acting on state bills. The Constitution bench emphasized that setting such deadlines would violate the separation of powers and disrupt the constitutional framework governing Centre–State relations.
Delivering the advisory opinion in response to a rare presidential reference, Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai, speaking for a unanimous five-judge bench, noted that although decisions taken under Articles 200 and 201 are ordinarily non-justiciable, prolonged or deliberate inaction by a Governor may allow for limited judicial scrutiny. In such cases, courts may direct the Governor to choose one of the constitutionally available options without reviewing the merits of the bill.
CJI: Governors Have Limited Discretion, Not Absolute Power
The bench stated that while Governors usually act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the Constitution grants them narrow areas of independent discretion. Therefore, it would be “unfathomable,” the court said, to argue that Article 200 strictly binds Governors to ministerial advice when returning a bill or reserving it for the President—actions that inherently require independent constitutional judgment.
The bench included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar. This advisory opinion—issued under Article 143—is not binding but carries substantial constitutional influence.
No ‘Deemed Assent’ and No Court-Imposed Deadlines
The court unanimously rejected the idea that courts can introduce “deemed assent” if a Governor or the President delays action. It also ruled that courts cannot fill “constitutional silences” by prescribing fixed periods for Governors to act on bills.
CJI Gavai said that timelines “would be antithetical to constitutional boundaries,” firmly reiterating that the judiciary cannot remodel Articles 200 or 201 to make them function differently from how the Constitution intended.
Judicial Review Only Against Indefinite Stalling
While reaffirming that decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are generally beyond judicial review, the court held that indefinite stalling of a bill “cannot completely defeat the will of the people expressed through the legislature.”
In such situations, courts may issue a limited mandamus—directing the Governor to act—without dictating what action must be taken.
The bench further clarified that this system ensures checks against inaction without reducing the Governor to a ‘rubber stamp’.
Why the Presidential Reference Was Filed
The advisory opinion came two months after the court reserved its views on September 11, following extensive hearings. President Droupadi Murmu had sought clarity under Article 143 after an April 8 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, which had imposed strict timelines and introduced a concept of “deemed assent” for bills.
The Constitution bench held that the April ruling did not lay down the correct law, and therefore cannot be cited as precedent.
Arguments Presented During the Hearings
-
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the April 8 judgment was incorrect and should not be binding law.
-
The Attorney General stated that Article 200 cannot be judicially redesigned, stressing the importance of gubernatorial discretion.
-
Senior counsel for several states—including Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Punjab, Telangana, and Karnataka—argued that Governors’ prolonged inaction has real consequences for governance, and judicial oversight is necessary to prevent constitutional standstills.
The court concluded that while Governors must act within a reasonable timeframe, courts cannot dictate the content of their decisions—only that a decision must be made.
