SC Outlines Limits of Judicial Review on Assent to State Bills

The Supreme Court has delivered a comprehensive opinion on the constitutional powers of the President and Governors regarding State Bills, firmly holding that courts cannot impose deadlines or declare ‘deemed assent’. The advisory opinion was issued by a five-judge Bench in response to a Presidential Reference under Article 143.

No Court-Mandated Timelines for Assent

The Bench held that prescribing fixed schedules for the President or Governors to act on Bills would violate the separation of powers. The Constitution does not outline specific timelines under Articles 200 and 201, and judicially created deadlines would effectively rewrite the constitutional framework governing assent.

Judicial Review Limited to Extreme Inaction

Although courts cannot dictate time-bound action, they may intervene in rare cases of prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction. In such circumstances, a limited mandamus may be issued, compelling the Governor to discharge his duty within a reasonable period. This power does not extend to assessing the merits of the decision.

Description of Governor’s Constitutional Options

Under Article 200, a Governor may grant assent, reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration, or withhold assent and return the Bill with comments, except in the case of Money Bills. The court stressed that a Governor cannot indefinitely hold a Bill without returning it, as this undermines legislative authority and the federal structure.

Exam Oriented Facts

• This was the 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143.
• The Bench consisted of CJI BR Gavai, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar.
• The court rejected the concept of ‘deemed assent’, calling it unconstitutional.
• Assent decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are non-justiciable except for review of extreme inaction.

Reaffirming Separation of Powers Principles

The court clarified that it cannot examine the contents of a Bill before it becomes law, nor can it compel the President to seek judicial advice on every reference made by a Governor. It emphasised that the Governor’s role involves discretion and is not strictly bound by ministerial advice. The opinion reinforces the balance between constitutional functionaries while ensuring that legislative processes are not obstructed through indefinite delays.