Constitution Bench of Supreme Court to hear Presidential reference on deadlines for bill assent by Governors

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear on July 22 a Presidential reference on whether the Court can lay down timelines and procedures for the President and State Governors when considering Bills passed by State legislatures [In Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India].

A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Atul S Chandurkar has been constituted to decide the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which allows the President to seek the Court’s opinion on questions of law or matters of public importance.

The Presidential reference challenges the top court’s top court's April ruling which prescribed timelines for the President and the Governor to decide on Bills and also held that the Governor’s inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review.

The reference was triggered by the Supreme Court’s judgment in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, where the Court ruled that the absence of a time limit under Article 200 could not be interpreted to allow indefinite delay.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor must act within a reasonable time and that constitutional silence could not be used to stall the democratic process.

The Court held that although Article 200 does not specify any time limit, it cannot be interpreted to allow indefinite delay by the Governor in acting on Bills passed by the State legislature.

“Though no timeline is prescribed under Article 200, the same cannot be construed as conferring untrammeled discretion on the Governor to withhold action on Bills presented by the State legislature,” the bench said while laying down timelines for the Governor to act.

With regard to the President’s powers under Article 201, the Court had held that her decision-making is not beyond judicial scrutiny and must occur within three months. If there is any delay beyond that period, reasons must be recorded and communicated to the concerned State.

“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State,” the judgment said.

The ruling drew sharp criticism from Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who publicly questioned the judiciary’s authority to direct the President on timelines. While speaking at a public event, he remarked:

“There is a directive to the President by a recent judgment. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We never bargained for democracy for this day. President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner and if not, it becomes law. So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament and absolutely have no accountability because law of the land does not apply to them,” he had said.

Following the ruling, President Murmu referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, raising constitutional concerns about the Court’s interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. The reference argues that neither Article contains any express provision empowering the Court to prescribe deadlines, and that the notion of “deemed assent” in the event of delay is not contemplated by the Constitution.

The reference objected to the Supreme Court’s ruling that introduced the concept of “deemed assent” if the President or Governor failed to act on a Bill within a prescribed time. The reference argued that such a concept was contrary to the constitutional framework.

“The concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor,” the reference stated.

The President’s questions are understood to include whether the Supreme Court can effectively legislate a procedure where the Constitution is silent, and whether timelines for assent encroach upon the discretionary domain of constitutional functionaries.

The reference also underscored that legislative functions are separate from judicial powers, and that directions of the kind issued in the Tamil Nadu Governor's judgment risk upsetting the balance between the three branches of government.

The Constitution Bench is now expected to consider whether the judiciary, in interpreting constitutional silences, may prescribe binding directions to the executive - particularly to high constitutional authorities such as the President and Governors.

The hearing on July 22 will mark the beginning of the Court’s deliberations on one of the most significant constitutional questions in recent years.