Supreme Court’s Clarification on Assent to Bills: No Hard Deadlines, But No Indefinite Delays Either

In a significant advisory opinion, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench—explained in detail by senior advocate Sanjay Hegde—has clarified the limits of presidential and gubernatorial discretion in granting assent to state legislation. The ruling aims to restore constitutional balance at a time when multiple states have accused Governors of stalling their legislative agenda.

---

No Court-Mandated Deadlines, But Also No Endless Delay

The Court held that neither the President nor state Governors can be forced into rigid, judicially imposed deadlines for approving or returning bills. The Constitution does not permit courts to set such strict timelines.

However, the Court made it equally clear that constitutional heads cannot keep bills pending indefinitely. They are required to act within a timeframe that is reasonable and not obstructive.

---

Deemed Assent Ruled Out

The idea that a bill becomes automatically approved—"deemed assent"—if no action is taken within a certain time was rejected as unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that assent is an active constitutional duty, not a passive outcome of silence.

---

“Reasonable Time” Standard

While no strict deadlines exist, the President and Governors must decide on bills within a “reasonable time.”
If unreasonable delays occur, the courts may intervene through limited judicial review, nudging constitutional authorities to act—though without imposing a direct mandate.

---

An Advisory Opinion, Not a Binding Judgment

The Supreme Court clarified that this decision is an advisory opinion under Article 143, provided in response to a reference from the President of India. It does not operate as an enforceable judgment but carries strong persuasive authority.

---

Balancing Centre–State Relations

The ruling attempts to preserve federal balance:

1. It prevents the Centre (via Governors) from indefinitely blocking state laws.

2. It avoids stripping Governors of their constitutional role in the legislative process.

The Court navigates a middle path, acknowledging tensions between elected state governments and centrally appointed Governors.

---

Governor’s Delays Under Scrutiny

States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal have repeatedly complained that Governors hold bills for months or even years. While the Court avoided harsh directives, it acknowledged that excessive delay undermines democracy and can be challenged legally.

---

Judicial Review Remains the Final Safeguard

If a Governor or President continues to delay action even after reminders, affected parties may approach the courts. Although courts may not impose contempt or direct orders frequently, they can:

1. question the delay,

2. set expectations,

3. and compel constitutional authorities to respond.

---

A Case-by-Case Future

The judgment deliberately avoids a one-size-fits-all rule. Each future dispute—especially in opposition-ruled states—will be examined based on:

1. the context,

2. the nature of the bill,

3. and whether the delay was justifiable.

This ensures the will of the legislature is not arbitrarily blocked.

---

A Balanced but Cautious Verdict

Analysts are divided:

1. Some argue the Court missed an opportunity to create stronger checks and balances.

2. Others believe flexibility is necessary in matters involving constitutional heads.

What emerges is a nuanced decision that respects the structure of the Constitution while keeping judicial oversight intact.

---

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has clarified that:

1. No automatic assent exists.

2. No strict deadlines can be imposed.

3. Judicial review remains available.

4. Governors and the President must act within a reasonable time.

The ruling maintains balance—neither empowering the Centre unilaterally nor giving states unchecked autonomy. Future outcomes will hinge on specific circumstances and the judiciary’s ongoing role as the guardian of constitutional order.

---