New Delhi – In a landmark judgment with major implications for India’s federal structure, the Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot fix a specific timeline for a Governor or the President to grant assent to bills. However, the apex court strongly asserted that this does not grant them the power to indefinitely delay the legislative process.
The verdict, delivered by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, directly addresses the escalating conflicts between several state governments and their respective Governors over prolonged delays in bill approvals. The ruling came on a plea filed by the Punjab government against its Governor.
Understanding the Judgment: Article 200 and ‘As Soon As Possible’
The core of the issue revolved around the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which guides the process of bill assent. The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of the phrase “as soon as possible” within the article. CJI Chandrachud clarified that while the court cannot create a timeline where the Constitution has not provided one, Governors cannot use this absence as a license for inaction.
The bench stressed that a Governor’s failure to act in a timely manner could effectively paralyze the will of a democratically elected legislature, a scenario that undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.
No ‘Deemed Assent’: A Blow to the Pocket Veto
In a crucial clarification, the Supreme Court unequivocally rejected the concept of “deemed assent.” This means a bill does not automatically become law simply because a Governor has failed to act on it for an extended period. This finding dismantles any notion of a “pocket veto” through sheer inaction, reinforcing that the power to legislate lies with the legislature, and the Governor must actively engage with the process.
SC Clarifies Governor’s Options: Assent, Withhold, or Reserve
The judgment provides a clear and binding roadmap for the constitutional options available to a Governor when presented with a bill:
- Grant Assent: Approve the bill, making it law.
- Withhold Assent: The Governor can refuse to sign the bill. Critically, if this option is chosen, the Governor must return the bill to the legislature with a message explaining their objections or suggesting amendments. They cannot simply sit on it.
- Reserve for President’s Consideration: This option is to be used for bills that might conflict with central laws or constitutional provisions.
The Court’s most significant check on the Governor’s power comes into play after a bill is returned. If the state legislature re-passes the bill (with or without amendments) and sends it back, the Governor has no choice but to grant assent.
“The Governor is not an unelected, overarching authority sitting in judgment over the wisdom of the legislature,” the bench observed, powerfully reinforcing the supremacy of the elected body.
Major Implications for State Governments and Federalism
This ruling is a major development in the ongoing friction between the Centre and non-BJP ruled states like Punjab, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu, which have accused their Governors of acting as political agents to stall governance.
While the states did not secure the fixed, court-mandated timelines they sought, they gained a powerful constitutional interpretation that prevents indefinite stonewalling. By compelling Governors to either assent or return a bill with a public message, the judgment forces transparency and accountability, moving the debate from closed-door delays to the legislative floor.
For Raj Bhavans, this ruling is a constitutional reminder of their role as facilitators, not roadblocks. The Supreme Court has masterfully restored a delicate constitutional balance—upholding the text by not inventing timelines, while enforcing its spirit to ensure democracy cannot be held hostage.
