Judiciary Cannot Impose Timelines on President and Governors: SC | 25 Nov 2025

Source: TH

Why in News? 

A 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India has delivered its advisory opinion in the 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution. 

• The Court ruled that it cannot impose judicial timelines on the President or Governors for assenting to State Bills, declaring such timelines to be against the principles of federalism and the doctrine of separation of powers.
• The reference stemmed from the Court’s ruling in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025), which had introduced timelines for constitutional assent and deem assent for pending bills.

What are the Key Highlights of SC Ruling on 16th Presidential Reference?

• No Judicially-Imposed Timelines: The Court held that neither a Governor (under Article 200) nor the President (under Article 201) is subject to fixed, court-imposed timelines for granting or withholding assent to bills, as doing so would amount to judicial overreach and violate the doctrine of Separation of Powers.
  • The Court clarified that Articles 200 and 201 contain no fixed timelines, and the phrase “as soon as possible” cannot be interpreted as a strict or enforceable deadline.
  • However, the SC held that “prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction” can be reviewed by the judiciary, and in such cases the Court may direct the Governor to act, but without imposing a deadline or examining the merits of the decision.
• ‘Deemed Assent’ is Unconstitutional: The Court firmly rejected the idea that a bill automatically becomes law (“deemed assent”) simply because the Governor or President did not act within some timeframe.
  • The Court held that deemed assent has no constitutional basis and using Article 142 to create it is impermissible, as it would let the judiciary replace the Governor or President and violate separation of powers.
• No Mandatory SC Advice for President: SC clarified that the President is not mandatorily required to seek the Court’s opinion under Article 143 for every reserved bill, and that decisions under Article 201 can be taken based on the President’s own constitutional satisfaction.

What is the Role of the Governor and President after a State Legislature Passes a Bill?

Governor's Role (Article 200)

• After a State Legislature passes a Bill, it is sent to the Governor under Article 200.
• The Governor may:
  
  • Grant Assent: The Governor may approve the Bill, allowing it to become law. 
  • Withhold Assent: The Governor has the authority to refuse assent to the Bill. 
  • Return the Bill (except a Money Bill)  for Reconsideration: The Governor may send the Bill back to the State Legislature for further review and reconsideration.
    • If the legislature passes the bill again after reconsideration, the Governor is limited to two options: either grant assent or reserve it for the President. At this stage, the Governor cannot withhold assent again.
  • Reserve for the President’s Consideration: In certain cases, the Governor can reserve the Bill for the President’s approval, especially if the Bill concerns matters of national importance or conflicts with central laws.

President’s Role (Article 201)

• When a bill is reserved by the Governor, It goes to the President under Article 201.
• The President may:
  • Grant Assent: The President can approve the Bill, making it law. 
  • Withhold Assent: The President may choose to withhold assent to the Bill.  
  • Return for Reconsideration: For non-Money Bills, if the President withholds assent, the President can direct the Governor to send the Bill back to the Legislature for reconsideration.
    • The Legislature is required to act within six months. If the Bill is passed again, it must be resubmitted to the President for final approval. 
    • If passed again after reconsideration, the President must take a final decision, with no constitutional timeline prescribed.

Conclusion

The SC ruling restores the constitutional scheme by rejecting timelines and deemed assent. It protects the discretion of the Governor and President while allowing limited review against unreasonable inaction. Overall, it reinforces separation of powers in legislative assent.