The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that delays in granting assent to Bills by the Governor or the President in some cases cannot justify the laying down of a blanket timeline, as such instances can be brought before the Court for resolution on a case-to-case basis.
The top court’s observation came in the course of the daylong hearing on the Presidential Reference, where the working of the Constitution was described as a “collaborative exercise” that must ensure one organ does not thwart the functioning of another. “There must be a level of amity and confidence so that the Constitution works,” the bench was told, a pointer to the prevailing situation in certain opposition-ruled States where Governors have sat over Bills for long durations.
A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justices Vikram Nath, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar is considering the May 15, 2025, Presidential Reference. It seeks the Court’s opinion on whether it exceeded its jurisdiction in prescribing timelines for Governors and the President to act under Articles 200 and 201, and whether the concept of “deemed assent” undermines the separation of powers.
CJI Gavai asked, “Can we lay down a straightjacket formula under Article 142 for the exercise of the power of the President and the Governor?” He pointed out that the Constitution provides “flexibility” by stipulating that Bills be returned “as soon as possible,” without a fixed period.
Justice Vikram Nath observed that prescribing a general timeline would “practically amount to the Court amending the Constitution.” Justice Narasimha reinforced the concern: “Flexibility provided ‘as soon as possible’ is a constitutional norm. But when matters come to Court with large delays, it becomes an individual list. There, the Court may exercise any kind of power. But to say that we will set a time limit is a difficult proposition.”
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, pressed for judicial intervention to prevent Governors from withholding Bills indefinitely. “Case-to-case approach will not solve the problem. Articles 200 and 201 necessitate a general timeline. It can’t be the court’s intention that I keep coming back every time,” Singhvi said.
He argued that a “deemed assent” could operate as a consequence if timelines were ignored. “Your lordships’ arms and ears are long and powerful enough to ensure that timelines are adhered to,” he remarked.
The bench, however, distinguished between case-specific directions and laying down a general rule. Referring to earlier rulings such as the Telangana Speaker disqualification matter and the Perarivalan remission case, CJI Gavai said, “We did not direct that all Speakers must decide within three months. It was specific to the facts.”
Singhvi nevertheless relied on the Anoop Baranwal judgment, where the Court devised an interim mechanism for the appointment of Election Commissioners, to argue that the judiciary can fill constitutional silences when governance is paralysed.
Broadly endorsing Singhvi, senior advocate Kapil Sibal opposed the Reference and focused squarely on the conduct of Governors. He said that under Article 200, the Governor must act “as soon as possible,” yet “he does not decide.” He said that “there is no principle of constitutional law which envisages the breakdown of constitutional machinery.” Stressing that each organ must not impede the other, he said, “The Governor must preserve and not thwart the constitutional process.”
Sibal underlined that the Constitution is “a collaborative exercise and not a combative exercise” and rejected the argument that Governors can withhold Bills indefinitely. There is nothing in Article 200 by which a Governor can kill a Bill by withholding it, he said, adding that once a Bill is presented, the Governor has only three options—assent, return with a message, or reserve it for the President.
Acknowledging that a Governor is “not a post office,” Sibal said he has only a “limited play” under the Constitution. Importing the satisfaction test of Article 356 into Article 200, he cautioned, would be unconstitutional. “Article 356 speaks of satisfaction, and satisfaction has an element of subjectivity. The same is not available under Article 200,” he explained.
The Union government and several BJP-ruled States have supported the Reference, contending that the judiciary’s earlier intervention intruded into the executive domain. On the other hand, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have challenged its maintainability, with Kerala arguing that advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 is available only for unsettled issues of law. Since Articles 200 and 201 have already been interpreted by the Court, Kerala has said, the present Reference is legally untenable.
The matter stems from the April 8, 2025, judgment, where the Supreme Court had fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills sent for assent and made their decisions subject to judicial review. That ruling triggered a political storm and prompted the Union government to seek clarity through the Reference.
The hearing will continue on Wednesday with Sibal continuing his submissions