SC Rejects Courts Imposing Timelines on President/Governor

• The Supreme Court ruled that constitutional courts cannot fix strict deadlines for the President or governors to act on bills passed by legislatures.
• This ruling came in response to a presidential reference under Article 143(1), which sought clarity on whether courts can mandate timelines under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
• A five-judge bench (led by CJI B.R. Gavai) struck down an earlier two-judge bench order (from the Tamil Nadu case) that had imposed deadlines on governors.
• The Court said courts cannot grant “deemed assent” to bills — i.e., they can’t assume the governor or president has approved a bill just because a deadline has passed.
• However, the SC made it clear that while there’s discretion, governors cannot withhold assent indefinitely.
• The bench emphasized the importance of dialogue between governors and state legislatures to resolve differences over a bill, instead of a confrontational or obstructionist approach.
• On judicial review: the Court said it can scrutinize prolonged inaction by the governor, to see if the delay is deliberate — but such review is limited.
• Discretion under Articles 200/201: the governor may either return a bill with comments or reserve it for the President. That constitutional discretion, the SC said, cannot be overridden by courts.
• The SC also rejected the earlier idea (from the two-judge bench) that the President must consult the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of a bill reserved for her — saying the President cannot be forced to seek SC’s opinion.
• The President’s reference had raised 14 questions on how Articles 200 and 201 should work — including whether courts can impose deadlines, whether governors’ decisions are justiciable, and whether Article 142 gives courts power to substitute constitutional functions.

Source: ToI