Supreme Court rules out fixed timeline for governors or President on bills

The Supreme Court has held that neither a state governor nor the country's president is under a constitutional obligation to act within any fixed timeframe on bills passed by a legislature. In a ruling delivered today, the court explained the limits of its advisory power in response to a presidential reference, while reaffirming key principles from an earlier judgment concerning the power of the Tamil Nadu governor.

“There is no textual warrant for treating the advice-giving power as subordinated to a time-limit; nor is there any statutory prescription which compels our court to fix one.”

The court rejected the argument that a Governor or President must give “deemed assent” if they do not act within a certain period, saying that such a concept lacks any basis in the constitution.

“Inserting a notion of ‘deemed assent’ would amount to judicial legislation, which would be inimical to the constitutional balance of power.”

Advisory opinion versus binding judgment

The Supreme Court made clear that its current opinion is strictly advisory, issued under its Presidential Reference jurisdiction. It distinguished this from its earlier decision about the Tamil Nadu Governor, calling that a binding precedent. The court noted that while advisory opinions guide constitutional actors, they do not override prior judgments.

“This court’s prior decision in respect of the Governor of Tamil Nadu remains binding and is unaffected by this Reference.”

No judicially imposed deadlines, but review possible

While the court declined to set a rigid deadline, it observed that undue delay in assenting to bills could invite judicial scrutiny. The judges stated that when delay becomes inordinate, affected parties may approach the court for relief — but stressed that courts should be cautious in prescribing fixed timetables.

“The absence of a time-limit does not mean unfettered discretion; in circumstances of manifest inaction, courts may examine delay through the lens of constitutionality.”

At the same time, the court emphasised the importance of dialogue between constitutional offices. It said that while it is not its role to micromanage governors or the president, transparent communication and co-operation are essential to prevent gridlock.

“It is always preferable if governors and governments endeavour to engage in constructive engagement rather than force the court to intervene.”

The outcome of this reference holds implications for state legislatures, especially those where tension exists between the executive and the governor’s office. The decision underlines that while constitutional offices enjoy discretion, their decisions are not beyond legal review if they are unduly dilatory.