Himalaya Harbinger, Uttarakhand Bureau.
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that Governors cannot keep bills passed by state legislatures pending indefinitely, but firmly declined to prescribe any judicially enforceable timelines for granting assent. Imposing such deadlines, the court said, would “trample upon the separation of powers” and run contrary to the “elasticity” the Constitution intentionally provides.
Delivering its remarks on a presidential reference, the court stressed that while delays cannot be indefinite, constitutional authorities like the Governor and President cannot be bound by rigid timelines.
“In a democratic country like ours, fixing timelines for Governors is against the elasticity provided by the Constitution,” the bench observed.
A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar had heard the matter over 10 days before reserving its opinion on September 11.
The reference was invoked by President Droupadi Murmu in May under Article 143(1), seeking clarity on whether courts can direct Governors or the President to act within fixed periods when dealing with state legislation. Her move followed an April 8 ruling concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor’s handling of assembly-passed bills.
The court, responding to the 14 questions raised by the President, also clarified the exact options available to Governors under Articles 200 and 201: they may grant assent, return a bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration. It emphasised that these are the only constitutionally sanctioned choices. “We don’t think Governors have unfettered power to sit over bills passed by state assemblies,” the bench said.
While reiterating that undue delays undermine the legislative process, the Supreme Court maintained that the judiciary cannot compel constitutional authorities to act within specified time frames, warning that such an approach would disturb the balance of powers embedded in the constitutional architecture.
