The Supreme Court rules that “deemed assent” for Bills violates the Constitution, rejecting judicial timelines for Governors and the President. The Constitution Bench clarifies Articles 200 and 201, limits gubernatorial discretion, and reaffirms the authority of elected state governments.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ruled that the concept of “deemed assent” in the context of gubernatorial or presidential approval of Bills is incompatible with the Constitution. The observation came while responding to a Presidential reference triggered by the controversy surrounding the Tamil Nadu Bills case earlier this year.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar, held that courts cannot impose mandatory timelines on Governors or the President for granting assent. Any such judicial intervention, the Bench stated, would directly undermine the Constitution’s deliberate design of “elasticity” under Articles 200 and 201 and violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
The apex court noted that Articles 200 and 201 provide a carefully balanced framework that allows the Governor or President to consider a Bill without being constrained by rigid deadlines. The Constitution, the Bench underlined, does not empower courts to introduce timelines through judicial innovation.
“The imposition of a timeline would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution so carefully preserves,” the Constitution Bench observed. It added that the use of Article 142 to manufacture the concept of “deemed assent” would amount to courts “supplanting the authority of another constitutional organ,” which the Constitution does not permit.
Revisiting the Tamil Nadu Bills Case
Earlier this year, a two-judge Supreme Court Bench had relied on Article 142 to hold that ten Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly should be considered “deemed assented to” owing to prolonged inaction by Governor R.N. Ravi. That Bench had also directed that future decisions regarding gubernatorial and presidential assent must be taken within three months.
However, the new Constitution Bench opinion clearly overrules such an approach. It held that constitutional discretion vested in Governors and the President cannot be judicially replaced with fixed timelines, emphasizing that “deemed assent” finds no place in constitutional text or practice.
Governor Cannot Withhold Assent Indefinitely
Despite rejecting judicial timelines, the Supreme Court reiterated that Governors cannot indefinitely block Bills approved by state legislatures. The Bench clarified that the Governor must act within the constitutional framework, which provides only three clear options under Article 200:
-
Grant assent to the Bill.
-
Return the Bill to the state legislature with comments (except for Money Bills).
-
Reserve the Bill for consideration of the President.
“We hold that the Governor does not have the power to simpliciter withhold,” the Bench stated firmly. The judgment stresses that the Governor must choose one of the three constitutionally sanctioned options and cannot create a fourth option through inaction.
Reaffirming Primacy of the Elected Executive
In a critical observation on constitutional governance, the Supreme Court underlined that India’s democratic framework places the elected government and its Cabinet at the center of executive decision-making.
“It is the elected government, the Cabinet, that should be in the driver’s seat and there cannot be two executive power centres,” the Bench declared, rejecting the Union government’s argument that Article 200 grants unrestricted discretion to Governors.
The court pointed out that the office of the Governor is designed as a constitutional sentinel, not as a parallel authority capable of overriding or indefinitely stalling the legislative will of an elected Assembly.
Limited Mandamus Still Permissible
While firmly ruling out both “deemed assent” and court-mandated timelines, the Supreme Court carved out a narrow exception: constitutional courts may issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to act under Article 200 “within a reasonable time,” without interfering with the merits of discretionary decisions.
This balanced approach, the Bench emphasized, respects both constitutional boundaries and democratic accountability.
A Clarifying Decision for Federal Governance
The Constitution Bench opinion brings clarity to a recurring flashpoint in Centre-State relations: delays by Governors in deciding the fate of Bills passed by state legislatures. By rejecting the idea of deemed assent while simultaneously placing boundaries on indefinite delays, the Supreme Court has attempted to restore equilibrium to India’s federal constitutional structure.
| Also Read: Unity Promo Fest Shines As Papon Delivers Mesmerising Live Show |
Legal experts believe that the ruling reaffirms the sanctity of constitutional processes and strengthens democratic governance by reinforcing the primacy of elected legislatures.
