SC Mandates Timelines for Presidential, Gubernatorial Assent to Bills, Asserting State Legislative Authority

In a landmark judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has decisively addressed the contentious issue of delays in granting assent to bills by Governors and the President, setting specific timelines for constitutional functionaries to act on legislation passed by state legislatures. The ruling, arising from a dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi, not only deemed the Governor’s conduct “unconstitutional” but also extended its ambit to the President's office, introducing a potential mechanism for judicial review in cases of undue delay at the highest executive level.

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan unequivocally stated that Governors and the President are constitutionally obligated to act within defined timeframes when considering bills. This judicial intervention seeks to curb the practice of ‘pocket veto’ and ensure the smooth functioning of the legislative process, reinforcing the principles of federalism and state legislative autonomy within the Indian constitutional framework.

Background: Tamil Nadu Governor's Inaction and the Supreme Court's Intervention

The case originated from the prolonged inaction of the Tamil Nadu Governor concerning 10 bills re-passed by the State Legislature in November 2023. These bills, largely related to appointments of Vice-Chancellors in state universities, had been pending with the Governor for extended periods, some dating back to January 2020. After the state government approached the Supreme Court, the Governor, rather than granting assent, reserved the bills for the President's consideration under Article 200 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court strongly criticized this move, deeming the Governor's reservation of the bills as “illegal and liable to be set aside.” Justice Pardiwala, writing for the bench, emphasized that the Governor had acted as a “roadblock,” frustrating the legislative will of the state. The court underscored that Article 200 provides the Governor with three options – to assent, withhold assent, or reserve for the President – but does not permit indefinite delays. Justice Pardiwala clarified, “Once a Bill is presented to the Governor, he is under a Constitutional obligation to opt for one of the three choices… The phrase ‘as soon as possible’ permeates Article 200 with a sense of expediency and does not allow Governors to sit on Bills and exercise pocket veto over them.”

Key Directives and Timelines Set by the Supreme Court

In a significant move to ensure accountability and timely action, the Supreme Court invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to set concrete timelines for Governors and the President.

The court stipulated the following time limits:

Governor's Initial Decision: A Governor has a maximum of one month to withhold assent to a bill based on the aid and advice of the State Cabinet.

Returning Bills with Message: If a Governor withholds assent contrary to the Cabinet’s advice and decides to return the bill with a message, they have a maximum of three months .

Reserving Bills for President: Similarly, a Governor has three months to reserve a bill for the President's consideration if acting against the advice of the State Cabinet.

Assent to Re-passed Bills: Crucially, the court mandated that a Governor “must” grant assent to a bill re-passed by the State Legislature under Article 200 within a maximum of one month .

Extending the scope of its directive, the Supreme Court clarified that these timelines are equally applicable to the President when bills are reserved for presidential consideration under Article 201. Specifically, referencing internal Home Ministry guidelines, the court stated that the “President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.”

Deemed Assent and Judicial Review Mechanism

In a strong message, the Supreme Court deemed the 10 Tamil Nadu bills to have received assent, effectively bypassing both the Governor's and the President's inaction. The court declared the actions of President Draupadi Murmu – who had assented to one bill, rejected seven, and not considered two others – as “void” and “non-est.” This unprecedented move highlights the court's resolve to ensure that the legislative process is not stalled by executive inaction.

Furthermore, the judgment explicitly opened the door for judicial review if these timelines are not adhered to. The court stated that if the President exhibits inaction beyond the prescribed three-month limit, “it shall be open to the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus from this Court.” This introduces a novel, albeit potentially contentious, mechanism to compel the highest constitutional authority to act within a defined timeframe.

Presidential Reference under Article 143 and the Role of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court also addressed the scenario where a Governor reserves a bill for the President’s consideration citing “perceived unconstitutionality.” The court, while acknowledging that the President is not bound by its advisory opinion under Article 143, “suggested” that the President “ought to” seek the Supreme Court’s opinion in such cases as a “measure of prudence.”

This recommendation aims to ensure that bills raising substantial constitutional questions are assessed by a “judicial mind” before a final decision is made. The court clarified its role in Article 143 references, stating it would focus on “pure legal questions regarding interpretation of the Constitution” and would exercise “self-imposed restraint” in matters involving “purely socio-economic or political questions.”

Reactions and Potential Implications

The Attorney General, R. Venkataramani, while acknowledging the judgment, raised concerns that the “President was not heard” in the proceedings and “should have been heard” before the court decided on presidential powers under Article 201. This point underscores the sensitive nature of the ruling and potential debates surrounding the separation of powers.

However, former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal strongly supported the judgment, stating that the Supreme Court was “absolutely right in putting the President and the Governor on the same pedestal” concerning legislative processes. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, echoed this view, emphasizing that Article 201 was “very much an issue” in the case.

The judgment has far-reaching implications for the balance of power between states and the Union, and for the operational dynamics of Indian federalism. By setting timelines and introducing the possibility of judicial intervention, the Supreme Court has asserted a more proactive role in ensuring the legislative process functions effectively and that state legislative authority is not undermined by executive delays.

Conclusion: A New Chapter in Governor-State Relations and Presidential Accountability

The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a significant development in Indian constitutional law, seeking to inject greater efficiency and accountability into the process of granting assent to bills. By setting defined timelines and establishing a judicial review mechanism, the court has attempted to address the long-standing issue of gubernatorial and presidential delays, ensuring that legislative intent is not frustrated by prolonged executive inaction. While potential debates surrounding the separation of powers and the enforceability of directives against the President may arise, the judgment undoubtedly strengthens the position of state legislatures and reinforces the principles of a vibrant and responsive federal polity. The ruling mandates a shift from discretionary delays to time-bound constitutional action, potentially ushering in a new chapter in Governor-State relations and presidential accountability in legislative matters.