Presidential Reference: SC Probes Judicial Power to Set Bill Assent Deadlines for Governors

New Delhi, August 19, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India today commenced hearings on a significant Presidential Reference that strikes at the heart of the delicate balance between judicial power and executive function. A five-judge Constitution Bench is examining 14 critical questions, chief among them whether the judiciary can impose timelines on the President or a Governor for granting assent to Bills passed by legislatures. The hearing saw pointed exchanges about the constitutional recourse available when a Governor indefinitely delays the legislative process, forcing the court to confront the limits of its own authority.

The reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu under the advisory jurisdiction of Article 143, was precipitated by a landmark, and contentious, two-judge bench judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case. In that ruling, the court had declared "deemed assent" to ten Bills that had been stalled for years, finding the Governor’s actions lacking in bona fides . The Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, is now tasked with providing clarity on the state of the law, a task that could redefine a key aspect of India’s federal structure.

The Shadow of the Tamil Nadu Judgment

The day's proceedings were heavily influenced by the preceding judgment. Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, opened arguments by questioning the legal foundation of the "deemed assent" granted by the two-judge bench, arguing that such a declaration was a judicial usurpation of a core constitutional function vested in the Governor.

The Bench, however, immediately steered the discussion towards the context that led to the controversial ruling. Justice Surya Kant directly challenged the AG on the factual basis of the prior case, asking, "The facts that are noted...is it correct that 2020 Bills are pending?"

Conceding the factual accuracy, the AG attempted to pivot away from the specifics of the Tamil Nadu case. "That's factually correct... I did not want to go back to the facts of the case," he stated, suggesting there were underlying "dynamics" and reasons for the delay. This reluctance was met with a sharp observation from the Chief Justice: "Because they are so glaring, you dont want to get into it." Justice Narasimha added wryly, “because there is no pudding.”

This exchange framed the central dilemma for the Court: what is the appropriate judicial response to an "egregious situation" where a constitutional authority appears to abdicate its duty, thereby creating a legislative and constitutional deadlock?

"What is the Constitutionally Permissible Recourse?"

The Bench repeatedly pressed the Attorney General on the options available to a constitutional court when faced with prolonged executive inaction. Justice Surya Kant posed a critical hypothetical, asking what the court should have done if it found the "deemed assent" declaration to be an incorrect remedy.

"Mr. Attorney, you also enlighten us, if these are the facts before a Constitutional Court... and according to you, the Court went wrong... what is the constitutionally permissible recourse for a Constitutional Court?" Justice Kant asked.

The AG contended that even in an "undesirable fact situation," the court cannot step into the shoes of the Governor. "Can the Court say it will enter into the shoes of the Governor and do what the Governor could have done?" he questioned. According to Venkataramani, the only permissible action would be to remand the matter back to the Governor with directions. "Otherwise, you are taking over the functions of the Governor. It can take over in any circumstances in future. No limits can be drawn."

This argument highlights the core principle of separation of powers. The AG's position is that judicial intervention must stop at directing the executive to act, not performing the act itself. To do otherwise, he warned, would erase the constitutional lines separating the branches of government and set a dangerous precedent.

An "Egregious Situation" or a Dangerous Precedent?

Justice Narasimha offered a potential lens through which to view the two-judge bench's decision, suggesting it was not intended to lay down a broad legal precedent but was rather a bespoke remedy to "handle an egregious situation." He pointed to paragraphs in the judgment that detailed the Governor's prolonged inaction and failure to show deference to court orders as the justification for invoking the extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do "complete justice."

The judgment in question had noted: "The conduct exhibited on part of the Governor... has been lacking in bonafides... In such a situation, it is difficult for us to repose our trust and remand the matter to the Governor."

The Attorney General countered that regardless of intent, the judgment now carries precedential weight. "The Court can say, apply this law, ask the Governor to give deemed assent," he argued, warning that this opens the door for courts to confront a "mind-boggling" array of factual scenarios where they might be asked to intervene in executive functions. The AG stressed that constitutional issues cannot be treated like private matters of "marriage or divorce," where Article 142 is more frequently applied.

Implications for Constitutional Governance

The outcome of this Presidential Reference will have profound implications for the functioning of state legislatures and the relationship between the judiciary and the executive. The key questions before the Constitution Bench are:

• Judicial Timelines: Can the Supreme Court constitutionally prescribe a timeline for a Governor or President to decide on a Bill? Doing so would provide a clear mechanism to prevent indefinite delays but could be seen as judicial overreach into the executive domain.
• The Remedy of "Deemed Assent": Is the concept of a court declaring "deemed assent" a valid exercise of judicial power, particularly under Article 142, or is it an impermissible transgression of the separation of powers?
• Constitutional Recourse for Inaction: If deemed assent is not permissible, what is the ultimate remedy for a state legislature when a Governor refuses to act on Bills for years, effectively exercising a pocket veto that is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution?

The hearing underscored the tension between upholding constitutional propriety and providing effective remedies for constitutional violations. While the Bench made it clear they would be expressing a view on the law and not re-evaluating the decision in the Tamil Nadu case, the "glaring" facts of that case provide the unavoidable context for this crucial legal determination.

The hearing is set to continue, with the legal community watching closely as the Supreme Court navigates this constitutional tightrope. The final opinion rendered will not only answer the President's 14 questions but will also shape the contours of executive accountability and judicial power for decades to come.