Governors must give their assent to bills passed by state legislatures within a reasonable time, the Supreme Court emphasised, cautioning that imposing strict deadlines for assent by Governors or the President threatens to embroil the judiciary in excessive oversight of the legislative process. The court warned that such rigid time-frames would likely trigger litigation and erode constitutional balance.
A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai underscored that although there is a need for expediency in completing legislative procedures, prescribing a fixed schedule is fraught with risks. “To fix a time limit is a risk the court takes,” Justice P S Narasimha observed, noting that judicial involvement could amount to undue interference in legislative affairs. The judges questioned whether, for example, acting within 24 hours in emergencies should rest with the court’s discretion.
The matter springs from a Presidential reference lodged by President Droupadi Murmu, questioning an April ruling in which a two-judge bench had fixed specific time-limits—one month for Governors and three months for the President—to act on bills, and had even invoked Article 142 to deem bills assented to following protest over delays. The reference presents 14 key constitutional questions, querying whether the court can mandate such time frames at all.
Opposing views have emerged from various states. West Bengal argued that arbitrarily granting Governors unbounded discretion undermines democracy, while also asserting that judicially imposed timelines would ensure that the people’s mandate is swiftly translated into law—even without amending the Constitution. Yet, the court maintained that isolated instances of delay do not warrant a blanket rule, signalling reluctance to mandate uniform time limits.
During earlier arguments, counsel appearing for Karnataka stressed that Article 200 confines Governor’s choices strictly to constitutional options—granting assent, returning a bill for reconsideration, or reserving it for the President under limited grounds—and does not permit indefinite withholding of assent. This view was echoed by Punjab, Kerala and others insisting that Governors are bound by ministerial advice except in extraordinary situations.
These deliberations echo judicial precedents. In the landmark State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu judgement of 8 April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot exercise absolute or “pocket” vetoes, must act within reasonable time, and are subject to judicial review if they unduly delay assent.
This discourse now hinges on the court’s forthcoming advisory opinion on whether it can prescribe time-limits for gubernatorial and presidential assent—an issue that Governors must act within reasonable time seeks to address, illuminating the fragile tension between timeliness in legislation and preservation of constitutional boundaries.
Trump Moves to Attend Asia-Pacific Summit in South Korea 