Courts Cannot Fetter President, Governor: Supreme Court
Why in the news?
- A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143.
- The Court examined whether the judiciary can impose time limits (“one-size-fits-all timetable”) on the President/Governors for disposing of State Bills.
- The SC held that courts cannot assume “deemed consent” or usurp gubernatorial functions by imposing strict deadlines.
- However, the Court emphasised that Governors/Presidents cannot sit indefinitely on Bills through “prolonged and evasive inaction.”
Background
- In April 2024, a two-judge SC bench (Tamil Nadu Governor case) fixed a three-month limit for Governors to act on Bills.
- Following this, the President of India sought the Court’s opinion under Article 143 (Presidential Reference) regarding:
- Constitutional duties of Governors/President under Articles 200 and 201.
- What happens if they delay the Bills?
- Whether courts can enforce strict timelines or assume deemed assent.
- The Reference raised 14 functional questions related to State legislatures, federalism, and executive functioning.
Key Feature
The judiciary cannot bind the Governors/President to strict timelines
- Courts cannot impose “one-size-fits-all time-tables”.
- Courts also cannot assume deemed assent after expiry of a judicially fixed period.
Courts cannot usurp gubernatorial/Presidential functions
- Assuming deemed consent or directing assent violates:
- Doctrine of separation of powers
- Basic structure of the Constitution
But the Governors/President cannot be inactive
- They cannot engage in prolonged, unexplained, indefinite delay.
- Such delay thwarts the people’s will expressed through the legislature.
Clarification of options available to Governors under Article 200
A Governor has three options:
- Grant assent
- Reserve the Bill for the President
- Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill) with comments for reconsideration
The Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent without returning the Bill and stating reasons.
Limited judicial review permitted
- Courts cannot review the merits of the Governor’s decision.
- But they may issue a limited mandamus requiring the Governor to act within a reasonable time when the delay is glaring.
Protection under Article 361
- The Governor/President enjoys absolute immunity from personal court proceedings.
Challenge
Constitutional silence
- No explicit time limit under Articles 200/201 → leads to delays in assent.
Executive–Legislature–Governor friction
- Increasing political tussles between State governments and Governors.
Threats to federalism
- Indefinite delay in Bills undermines the authority of elected State legislatures.
Possible misuse of discretion
- Governors may delay politically sensitive Bills.
Judicial restraint dilemma
Courts must balance:
- Preventing executive overreach
- Avoiding judicial overreach
Way forward
Codifying timelines through constitutional amendment or parliamentary law
- To avoid ambiguity around “reasonable time”.
Clear Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
- For interaction between State governments and Raj Bhavans.
Strengthening cooperative federalism
- Regular communication rather than confrontation.
Transparency in reasons for withholding Bills
- Mandatory written explanations can reduce arbitrary delays.
Judicial guidelines for what constitutes “prolonged inaction”
- To prevent misuse of Article 200 discretion while respecting the separation of powers.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s opinion strikes a delicate balance: It protects the constitutional autonomy of Governors and the President from judicial overreach. Yet it also prevents misuse of constitutional silence by prohibiting indefinite delays in granting assent to Bills. The ruling reinforces federalism, democratic accountability, and separation of powers, while calling for responsible conduct from constitutional heads.
