The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised doubts about its own authority to set deadlines for Governors and the President when it comes to granting assent to bills passed by State legislatures.

A five-judge Constitution panel comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar was considering a reference sent by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution.

The reference challenges the Court’s April ruling which had directed that the President and Governors should act within specified timeframes while dealing with bills.

During the hearing, the judges questioned what would happen if these deadlines are ignored.

Justice Vikram Nath observed, “Then Parliament has to amend the Constitution to incorporate these timelines into Articles 200 and 201.”

The judges also asked whether the Court could grant “deemed assent” if a Governor fails to act.

“Can this Court step into the Governor’s role and exercise the three options available to him?” Justice Nath remarked.

Background of the issue

The present proceedings relate to a ruling delivered earlier this year in the case State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr, where the Court held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay action on bills, even though Article 200 does not mention any time limit.

It was also held that under Article 201, the President must decide within three months, and any delay beyond that requires reasons to be recorded and shared with the State.

In response, the President sent fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, including whether the judiciary can create procedural requirements where the Constitution is silent and whether timelines intrude on the discretion granted to Governors and the President.

Arguments presented

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that only an elected cabinet has the authority to reject a bill, not a Governor.

“If that power is given to the Governor, then the constitutional framework collapses. He cannot be a ‘super Chief Minister’,” Singhvi said.

He also defended the idea of timelines, stressing that without them, States would be forced to repeatedly approach courts whenever a Governor withholds assent.

Justice Gavai, however, pointed out that timelines might be too rigid, as circumstances can vary from case to case.

Singhvi responded that delays have become a recurring pattern, effectively making Governors a veto power. He said consequences such as deemed assent or even contempt proceedings must follow if timelines are ignored.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, added that allowing Governors to withhold assent undermines the will of the people expressed through legislatures.

“The executive has no legislative power. The President and Governors must act on the advice of ministers. If they refuse, then the will of the people is frustrated. No constitutional principle permits such a breakdown,” Sibal argued.

He further said, “The Constitution is rooted in history but oriented to the future. It is you five who will decide the country’s future on this issue.”

Broader implications

Attorney General R Venkataramani earlier questioned whether the Supreme Court could in effect rewrite the Constitution by fixing timelines. He submitted that the April ruling treated the President like an “ordinary statutory authority.”

On earlier dates of hearing, the Court had remarked that if Governors are allowed to indefinitely stall bills, it would leave elected governments hostage to unelected representatives of the Union.

The Tamil Nadu government had also warned that allowing Governors to withhold assent even for money bills would make them more powerful than Chief Ministers.

Concluding today’s hearing, the judges clarified that their decision on the Presidential reference will not be guided by the political party in power at the Centre or in any State.