Judiciary cannot impose timelines on President and Governors: Supreme Court

On 21 November 2025, the Supreme Court made a large and consequential ruling that courts have no authority to deliver timelines on the President or Governors in relation to Bills pending approval under Articles 200 and 201.
The matter arose through the 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143, as the President had posed a formal question to the Court seeking clarity on conflicting interpretations of the Constitution.

This issue has critical constitutional significance to India’s federalist and quasi-federal system of governance because delayed assent disrupts the democratic functioning of Governor-appointed, and democratically elected, State Governments. It also provides an opportunity to institutionalize the relationship between the executive, legislature, and judiciary, thus embodies the discussion of federalist governance systems.

This dilemma is exceedingly important due to India’s federal structure, as postponed assent undermines the democratic function of elected state governments, and tests the proper balance of powers between the executive, legislature and judicial branch, thus presenting a critical constitutional question.

Background of the Disagreement

The Supreme Court’s Previous Verdict (April 2025) Imposing Timelines: In April of 2025, the Supreme Court sought to mandate particular time limits (for example, directing Governors to act in a set time, 30-90 days) due to what it termed as “abuse of delay.”

Disagreements Relating to the Governors’ Postponements of Signed Bills

Various states complained that their Governors had withheld bills submitted to them for periods of time, incuding months, if not years, which inhibited the elected legislature’s ability.to act on the legislative agenda.
 

Relation to the Increasing Centre-Stae Tensions, and Perceptions of Political Manipulation

Many observers see the pending bills and the political tensions between newly elected State and Central governments as an institutionally created problem, intensified by the Centre’s increased interventions in the States.

Need for Clarity from the President

As there are two conflicting interpretations, allowing the Court to impose a time limit, versus the provision stating that the Constitution does not provide authority for that, the President needed authoritative clarity from the Court.

Observations from the Supreme Court

No Timescales May be Imposed

• The Court stated it cannot create terms that the Constitution did not.
• Courts cannot create a timescale.
• This would violate Separation of Powers as only Parliament or the Constitution can determine the timescale.

No Concept of ‘Deemed Assent’:

• The President does not need to seek the Court’s opinion for every Bill that is reserved.
• The court stated that establishing deemed assent would:
• rewritten constitutional provisions, and
• allowed the judiciary to make law, which is impermissible.

Governors/President May Not Sit on Bills Expectantly:

While courts cannot impose timescales, the Court cautioned that an expectant delay would violate constitutional morality.

An expectant delay would:

• violate the will of the legislature,
• undermine federation, and
• create an executive overreach, and
• So while we cannot impose timescales, constitutional authority cannot act expectantly.

Limited Judicial Review

The Court may only intervene in exceptional circumstances, including:

• malafide delay, and
• irrelevant consideration or
• procedural abuse.
• But courts cannot question the merits of an assent or veto. The court can look at the process only, not at the decision.

President discretion: The Supreme Court clarified:

• The President is not bound to; to seek the Court’s opinion under each Bill reserved.
• The President’s assent is based on subjective satisfaction, aided by the Union Council of Ministers.

This preserves the dignity and constitutional space of the office of the President.

Note: Learn about Indian Tribunals from here.

Article 200 – Governor’s Assent to Bills

• Article 200 of the Constitution specifies that once the State Legislature passes a Bill, the Governor must examine it and either give assent or withhold assent.
• Article 200 continues that the Governor may “return the Bill” for reconsideration “as soon as possible after the presentation,” provided it is not a Money Bill.
• This Article primarily gives the Governor the power to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President in circumstances where the Bill is contrary to the Constitution, is likely to affect the powers of the High Court, or relates to issues the Union must approve.

In essence, Article 200 gives the Governor four constitutional options. The Governor may give assent and make the Bill a law, refuse assent and reject the Bill, return it once for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President and leave the final decision to the Union Government.

The Constitution does not specify a period for these actions because it expects constitutional heads to exercise judgment and act after considering advice, not under a deadline. The State Council of Ministers normally binds the Governor through its aid and advice, except in exceptional constitutional situations.

Article 201

• Article 201 presents that where the Governor adopts the course of reserving a Bill and the Bill is presented to the President, the President “shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom.”
• Article 201 also mentions that the President may return the Bill (excepting Money Bills) to the State Legislature with a request that it reconsider it.
• Following this Article, if the State Legislature again passes the Bill (with or without amendments), the President “shall not be obliged to give assent” meaning, in effect, that the President may withhold assent to the Bill even after it has gone through the legislative process again.

This Article positions the President as the final constitutional filter for potential legislation that may impact national interests, federal structure of power between the centre and States, or constitutional boundaries.

The President acts on the aid and advice of the Union Council of Ministers, and this ensures that the constitutional position and policy perspectives of the Union Government are adequately taken into account and consideration. Like Article 200, Article 201 offers no timeframe for the President to make decisions. This is a clear reflection of the framers’ intent that matters ultimately requiring the President’s assent are usually subject to additional consultation on the part of ministries and constitutional authorities, and also to a certain extent cannot be put in rigid timelines.

Comparison of Assent on bills by Governor vs President

Different perspectives on the judgement

The Judiciary’s Perspective on the Matter

The judiciary is clear that its duty is to interpret the Constitution—and not create it. The Supreme Court, notably, when it declined to set timelines for government decision-making, reiterated that the courts cannot rewrite the Constitution, no matter how noble the purpose, and that we must acknowledge the separation of powers.

To be clear, the Court stated that institutional authorities can’t rely on lack of timelines to indefinitely delay decisions—that would undermine the proper functioning of a democracy. So the judiciary is trying to balance respect for constitutional limits and pushing institutions to act better.

The Executive’s Perspective on its Role under the Constitution

To the executive—Union and state—assent is not simply a matter of checking a box or signing a piece of paper. A process requires the executive to consider the question legally, administratively, and politically.

Executive ministries often require time to consider compatibility with pre-existing laws, federal duties, or explicit orders in the constitution. Imposition of deadlines may not allow time for proper review of any considerations. Therefore, the executive supports an environment where indecisiveness can occur, while also recognizing accountability matters, and some timeliness will benefit the public’s confidence in government.

How Legislatures See the Judgment

State legislatures see delays in granting assent to legislation as direct interference in the mandate of elected representatives as democratic institutions. Delays in legislation can often cease meaningful policy making, impede governance, and factor into budgetary planning.

Legislatures argue that elected governments should not be impeded by appointed constitutional powers. This judgment raises the issue highlighted, then declines to require definitive timelines, and leaves all to the political executive and constitutional conventions.

What the Judgment Means for the Federal Balance

The judgment further strengthens the balance of power between Centre and States in a federal sense. It delineates the judiciary from entering into executive duties whilst also drawing attention to some governors misusing their delays which undermines collaborative federalism. The ruling nudges constitutional authority to exercise their discretion fairly and responsibly, with consciousness of both State rights as well as the national good. The judgment places a moral obligation upon constitutional offices to honour and uphold the spirit of federalism.

Reflections from Academic Scholars and Citizens

Legal academics and citizenry recognize the judgment as a reminder, and validation, that constitutional offices act transparently, efficiently and in good faith. However, citizens recognize that even if timelines are not noted, modern governance requires more definitive norms, or legislated rules. Importantly, public sentiment is in favour of removing uncertainty so that bills do not end up in legal limbo. Academics have also pointed to the value of iteratively structured conventions where there is periodic reporting of decisions and better communication between State and Central authorities.

Way Forward

1. Establish Robust Constitutional Conventions

India can create robust conventions – the Governor taking action within a ‘reasonable period’ – that bind the parties through an established practice of time. Many Commonwealth countries work well on conventions rather than legal timelines.

2. Explore a Parliamentary Act for Reasonable Periods of Time

Parliament can pass an act under its constitutional powers to define reasonable time periods, timing requirements, and duty to publish reasons for withholding assent. This respects the Separation of Powers test and serves a practical governance strategy.

3. Enhance Transparency and Publoc Accountability

Publishing the status of pending Bills, noting the reasons for delay and updating State Legislatures regularly can remove suspicion and build trust. Transparent practices assure that constitutional discretion is used responsibly, rather than politically.

4. Enhance Coordination between Centre–States

Establishing a structured-ongoing consultation process between ministries and State governments to diminish unnecessary reservations of Bills. Early engagements can identify potential constitutional conflicts and reinforce cooperative federalism.

5. Refine Rules for Judicial Review of Legislation or Delay

The courts can provide clearer tests for determining malafide or unreasonable delay without intruding on the discretionary nature of the executive. More precise judicial tests can ensure constitutional values are upheld while recognizing the constitutional relationships of the President and the Governor.

UPSC Prelims PYQ on Assent powers

2023

The question asked about the Governor’s powers regarding Bills. It included two statements:
(1) The Governor has the power to reserve any Bill passed by the State Legislature for the President’s consideration.
(2) The Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers when reserving a Bill.
Candidates had to identify which statement(s) were correct.

2022

The UPSC asked:
(1) Whether the President must return a Money Bill to Parliament for reconsideration.
(2) Whether the President lacks absolute veto power.
The question required selecting the correct statement(s).

2021:

The question focused on features that give the Constitution a “unitary tilt.” Options included:
(a) All India Services
(b) Appointment of Governors by the Centre
(c) Emergency Powers
(d) Parliament’s ability to legislate on State List subjects
Candidates had to choose the correct combination.

2020:

UPSC asked whether:
(1) Judicial review of the Governor’s discretionary powers is not permitted, and
(2) The Governor is only a constitutional head without discretionary authority.
The task was to identify which statement(s) were correct.

2019:

A question based directly on Articles 200 and 201 asked which statement was correct among the following:
(a) The Governor must give assent within 30 days
(b) The President can return a State Bill once for reconsideration
(c) The Governor has no power to withhold assent
(d) The President must give assent to a Money Bill passed by a State Legislature.

2018:

The question tested the meaning of “pocket veto,” asking whether it refers to:
(a) Governor delaying assent indefinitely
(b) President keeping a Bill pending indefinitely
(c) Supreme Court delaying judgments
(d) PM keeping ordinances pending.

2017:

The question asked whether:
(1) Every Bill passed by a State Legislature must receive the President’s assent, and
(2) A Bill can become a law even without the Governor’s assent.

2016:

The question explained why India is considered quasi-federal by examining whether the following make the Governor an agent of the Centre:
(1) Appointment by the President
(2) Power to reserve Bills
(3) Power to dismiss the Council of Ministers.

Conclusion

The Importance of Balancing the Institutions

The assent mechanism in Articles 200 and 201 preserves a fragile constitutional balance, whereby the Governor guarantees that State laws remain within constitutional limits while the President acts as the last constitutional check which protects the interests of the country as a whole.

Federal Harmony Without Compromising Checks and Balances

An appropriate balance between:

• State independence
• National oversight
• Examination of the State by the judiciary.

…will facilitate India remaining a cooperative federal State where no branch (Executive, Legislative or Judiciary) exceeds its bounds, which is important to prevent constitutional friction and uphold the federal spirit.

FAQs

Q1. Why can’t courts impose timelines on Governor or President?

Because the Constitution deliberately does not specify any time limit in Articles 200 and 201.
Courts cannot rewrite the Constitution or insert new timelines.
They can only intervene when the delay is mala fide or unreasonable, but they cannot prescribe a time frame.

Q2. What happens if the Governor delays assent?

• The bill simply remains pending.
• Courts may ask the Governor’s office to “decide expeditiously” but cannot force assent.
• The only exception: if delay is politically motivated or arbitrary, courts can question the process—NOT the decision.

Q3. Can the President return bills?

Yes — but only once, and only non-Money Bills.
If the States pass it again, the President must give assent.

Q4. Is “deemed assent” valid?

No.
The Constitution provides “deemed assent” only in very specific cases (like Article 111).
For Governor/President assent under Articles 200–201, there is no deemed assent provision.
Courts have refused to create a new concept.

Q5. What judicial review is permitted?

Courts can review:
– Arbitrary delay
– Mala fide intention
– Non-application of mind
– Constitutional violation (e.g., reserving bill without reason)