Supreme Court Hearing on Approval of Bills: No Fixed Time Limit for President or Governors, but Indefinite Delay Not Permissible
In a significant constitutional ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India held that it cannot prescribe a fixed time limit for Governors or the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures.
At the same time, the Court made it unequivocally clear that Governors do not possess the authority to keep a bill pending indefinitely without valid reasons.
A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai delivered the judgment while responding to crucial constitutional questions referred by the President under Article 143 (Presidential Reference).
The Bench emphasized that the judiciary, even while exercising extraordinary powers under Article 142, cannot declare bills as deemed to have been assented to merely because a certain time period has lapsed.
Such an action, the Court observed, would amount to the judiciary encroaching upon the domain of the executive.
It all began after State governments complained that their bills were getting stuck with the Governors, sometimes for months, sometimes for years. The assemblies continued to pass laws, but the Governors were not responding.
People started asking:
“Can a Governor block a bill forever?”
“Can a bill be considered approved if he delayed too long?”
“Who decides? The Governor, the President, or the courts?”
To settle this confusion once and for all, President Droupadi Murmu stepped forward.
She sent 14 important questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143 — a rare move used only when the Constitution needs deep interpretation.
The questions reached the Supreme Court like sealed scrolls from the highest authority in the land. And so began the story.
In the grand courtroom, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai gathered. Their mission was simple but enormous:
Explain, clearly and finally, how Governors and the President must deal with bills passed by state legislatures.
But just as the judges prepared to begin, something interesting happened.
A small but significant “ghost” from the past walked in — the April 2025 judgment of a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu case. That earlier ruling had set a strict time limit for Governors and the President to approve bills.
The Constitution Bench looked at it and said:
“This part of the Tamil Nadu judgment is wrong.
We strike it down.”
Now the court turned to President Murmu’s 14 scrolls.
“Can we force the Governor or President to decide within a fixed time?”
The judges said:
“No. The Constitution does not set a timer, and neither can we.”
“Can the Governor keep a bill pending forever?”
“Absolutely not,” the court replied.
“No Governor has the right to sit on a bill endlessly. It destroys democracy.”
“If the delay is too long, can we treat the bill as automatically approved?”
The court stood firm:
“No. A bill cannot become law by silence. Approval must be real, not imagined.”
“When should a Governor send a bill to the President?”
“Only when the Constitution specifically requires it — not out of convenience.”
“Can a Governor return a bill to the assembly for reconsideration?”
“Yes — but only non-money bills.
Money Bills must move straight ahead.”
“Can a Governor withhold assent forever to kill a bill?”
“No. Withholding is not a weapon. It must be used sparingly and reasonably.”
“Can the Supreme Court intervene if the Governor delays too much?”
“Yes,” the court said.
“When delays become unreasonable, we can step in.”
“Can the Governor bypass the cabinet and send a bill directly to the President?”
“No. The Governor must follow the constitutional path — and the elected government.”
“If the assembly passes the bill again, must the Governor approve it?”
“Yes. Once the bill returns, the Governor cannot refuse.”
“Can the Governor rewrite the bill or suggest changes beyond what is allowed?”
“No. The Governor is not a co-author.
He can only return, assent, reserve, or withhold.”
“Can the President delay bills forever if they are sent to her?”
“No. Just like Governors, the President must act within a reasonable time.”
“Does keeping bills pending harm federalism?”
“Yes.
Delays weaken the relationship between the Centre and states.”
“Can the Governor act politically when dealing with bills?”
“No. The Governor must act on the advice of the elected government.”
“Can the central government influence the Governor’s decisions on assent?”
“No.
The Governor is a constitutional guardian, not a political agent.”
After opening all fourteen scrolls, the Supreme Court delivered a message that echoed across the land:
No fixed deadlines
No indefinite delays
No automatic approval
No political interference
No returning of Money Bills
No misuse of the power to reserve bills
Yes to reasonable timelines
Yes to cooperative federalism
Yes to judicial intervention when necessary
The Tamil Nadu bench’s earlier judgment setting time limits is no longer valid — it has been corrected.
Supreme Court Clarifies Governor’s Powers: No Fixed Deadlines, No Endless Delays, and Tamil Nadu Time-Limit Judgment Scrapped
#SupremeCourt #ConstitutionBench #GovernorPowers #PresidentialReference #Article143 #Article200 #Article201 #DemocracyInAction #IndianFederalism #TamilNaduCase #JudicialReview #IndianConstitution #BreakingLegalStory
