Supreme Court verdict on timeline for President and Governor to assent to bills

Why in news 

• The Five-judge constitution bench of Supreme Court headed by the CJI B R Gavai, reserved its opinion in the matter of powers of the President and Governors in giving assent to Bills passed by the State assemblies.
• President of India (Droupadi Murmu) had issued a Presidential reference under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution to the Supreme Court.

Basis of Issue

• On April 8, 2025 , The two-judge bench of Supreme court by invoking it powers under Article 142 had set the timeline for President and Governors to act on pending bills passed by state  assemblies as 3(three) months and 1(One) month respectively, from the date of bills received. The delay by Tamilnadu Governor to assent to bills was Unconstitutional

Detail

• Recent Constitutional Development: President and Governor's Assent to Bills
• A significant legal issue has emerged regarding the powers of the President and Governors in providing assent to bills passed by State Assemblies.
• A Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India has reserved its opinion on this matter.
• The case primarily concerns:
  • Article 111 – President’s assent to bills passed by Parliament.
  • Article 200 – Governor’s assent to bills passed by State Legislatures.
• Background of the Case: Tamil Nadu vs Governor R.N. Ravi
• The case originated when the Tamil Nadu Government approached the Supreme Court against Governor R.N. Ravi for delaying assent to several state bills.
• The government claimed that important bills (2020–2023) were being kept pending without action, hindering governance and development.
• Chief Minister M.K. Stalin argued that the Governor’s inaction was unconstitutional and affected legislative functioning.
• Tamil Nadu urged the Court to:
  • Set a timeline for Governors to give assent.
  • Ensure that development through legislative means is not stalled.
• Supreme Court Ruling (8 April 2025)
  • In Tamil Nadu vs Governor R.N. Ravi, a Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that:
• Withholding assent to 10 bills was “illegal” and “erroneous” under Article 200.
  • Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, argued that:
• The phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 cannot mean indefinite delay.
• Attorney General R. Venkataramani responded that:
  • Some bills required reconsideration, especially those affecting gubernatorial powers.
• The Court:
  • Rejected the idea of an “absolute veto”.
• Cited precedents:
  • State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023)
  • Union of India v. Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary (1979)
• Used Article 142 to:
  • Deem the 10 bills as assented.
  • Set reasonable timelines for Governors and the President.
  • Assert that withholding or reserving assent is subject to judicial review.
• Historical Context
• 1950s Kerala: Land reform and labour rights bills passed by the Kerala Assembly were delayed by the Governor, triggering debates on constitutional and central-state relations.
• 1970s (Indira Gandhi Era): Several instances of withholding assent deepened the tensions between the executive and legislature, raising concerns about misuse of gubernatorial discretion.

Key Terms & Definitions

• Presidential Reference – As per Article 143(1), Empowers the President to refer to the Supreme Court “questions of law or fact which are of public importance” for its opinion. This is advisory; the President is not bound by it.
• Governor’s Power – Article 163, Relates to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers to the Governor; Governor acts on aid & advice, except in (discretionary) cases provided in Constitution.
• Governor’s Veto – Under Article 200, Governor has power to assent, withhold, and return the bills presented before him after passed from state legislature. When Governor withhold the bills then this power of withholding referred as Absolute Veto. 
• States fundamental rights – Article 32, deals with the Writ petitions, which could be applied in the form of Mandamus if Governor fails to give assent within a time period mentioned by Supreme court. 

Issue observed in other States

• West Bengal – The West Bengal’s CM Mamata Banerjee alleged the Governor of West Bengal for delaying various bills to assent. Hence, She moved to Supreme court against this practice of blocking and inaction. 
• Tamil Nadu – The delaying assent to bills were seen for extended periods in Tamilnadu state. The State suffers with the pain of inaction of Governor to assent to bills.
• Punjab – Punjab government is among those states that moved to Supreme Court to challenge the  practice of not giving assent to bills passed by state assemblies
• Kerala -  The state government headed to a Supreme Court against the governor’s power for withholding assent to bills and delaying their reconsideration.
• Delhi – The Chief Minister of Delhi Mr. Arvind Kejriwal protested against the Lieutenant Governor’s power to stall the bills for the assent on the subject of public interest.

Arguments on both sides

A. Arguments in Support of reform in Judicial Timelines 

1.Democratic Accountability : The Governor and President are constitutional heads, not elected representatives. Once a Bill is passed by an elected legislature, any indefinite delay in assent undermines the democratic mandate.

2. Constitutional Morality and Good Governance

• The phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 implies that action must be taken within a reasonable timeframe, even if no fixed deadline is mentioned.
• Prolonged inaction violates the spirit of the Constitution and can be challenged through judicial review.

3. Judicial Precedent and Role under Article 142

• The Supreme Court has a duty to ensure "complete justice". In past rulings, it has interpreted executive responsibilities to preserve the constitutional balance.
• The April 2025 ruling rightly used Article 142 to prevent abuse of power by enforcing timely assent.

B. Arguments Opposing Judicial Timelines (Centre’s and Conservative Viewpoint)

1.Judicial Overreach and Separation of Powers

• The Constitution deliberately omits a rigid timeline for assent. Imposing one through judicial interpretation may be seen as judicial legislation, which violates the principle of separation of powers.

2.Constituent Assembly Intent

• The framers of the Constitution had considered and rejected proposals to set fixed timelines for assent. The current wording reflects a deliberate choice to provide flexibility.

3.Practical Governance Considerations

• Some Bills require detailed constitutional and legal scrutiny before assent. In rare cases, the Governor/President may have valid grounds to reserve or return a Bill.
• Imposing strict deadlines may compromise the quality of constitutional review or lead to hasty and ill-considered assent.

C. The Larger Constitutional Tension

This issue reflects a deeper debate about:

• Democratic supremacy vs. constitutional discretion, and
• The appropriate role of judiciary in enforcing accountability among constitutional functionaries.

Implications and significance (for policy / governance)

• Rule of Law & Constitutional Morality: Delays subvert legislative will; accountability demands that laws passed by legislatures should not be held up excessively by unelected constitutional functionaries.
• Democratic legitimacy: The representative will of elected legislature vs constitutional head. Too much discretionary power in Governors / President can weaken democratic mandates.
• Judiciary’s role and limits: This case will show how far judiciary can go in directing or enforcing constitutional obligations. It tests separation of powers.
• Precedent setting: The outcome may have far-reaching precedents in other states, across similar situations (Bills passed but withheld).
• Federal relations: Especially in states with opposition governments, the issue becomes political. Possible misuse of delay or veto powers by Governors aligned with central power. So, political trust, centre-state relations are at stake.
• Administrative & legislative efficiency: Clear timelines might promote better functioning; but rigid deadlines might also cause issues (e.g. when advice, legal scrutiny or vetting is needed).
• Potential Constitutional Amendment: If SC were to say timeline must be fixed or that delay is unconstitutional beyond certain period, that may lead to proposals for constitutional amendment.

Potential criticisms / counterpoints / risks

• Rigid timelines might not allow for necessary checks: legal vetting, constitutional compatibility reviews, etc.
• What about cases where assent is withheld or reserved for President due to constitutional conflict (federal/union law, etc.)? Complexity might make it difficult to have one-size timelines.
• Risk that in some states, governor’s assistants/advice may be delayed due to bureaucratic or legal issues; judicial imposition might not accommodate operational constraints.
• Possible judicial overreach: if Courts become “headmasters” of the executive, damaging separation of powers.