Supreme Court: President, Governors Not Bound by Timelines to Approve Bills

Key Points

The Supreme Court on Thursday, 20 November 2025, delivered a key verdict clarifying that State Governors and the President cannot be bound by a fixed deadline when deciding whether to give assent to bills. The ruling came from a five judge Constitution Bench responding to a rare Presidential reference.

The bench, comprising CJI Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, held that attempts to prescribe deadlines under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution are “strictly contrary” to its framework. It also asserted that non-adherence to timelines by the executive figures could not be construed as ‘deemed assent’. This provides a definitive clarification on the separation of powers in India’s federal structure.

The Bench stated that passing a bill automatically, in case the President or Governor failed to act within a time limit, would amount to the judiciary assuming the role of the executive. Further, the Bench held that decisions made by Governors or the President under Articles 200 and 201 are broadly non-justiciable – they cannot be brought to court during the decision-making stage. Rather, judicial review begins only after a bill becomes law.

The court did add a caveat: if there is an extraordinarily long and unexplained delay by a Governor in granting assent, courts may intervene under limited circumstances. But they cannot fix a universal time limit.

See Also: President Murmu Nominates Four Rajya Sabha members, Who are they?

The decision came after a reference made by President Murmu herself, who asked the court to clarify whether Governors and the President could have their timelines fixed and powers subject to judicial review. The reference followed a previous two-judge bench ruling on 8 April 2025, which had tried to set deadlines for Governors to act on bills. This was part of the Tamil Nadu Governor case, where the state government had approached the court over arbitrary delays in the evaluation of bills.

In the judgement, specific timelines were set: one month for assent or reservation, three months for return of the bill, etc. In response, President Murmu referred 14 questions to the top court, asking if such judicially imposed timelines were permissible and whether the President’s and Governors’ discretion is subject to court control. The latest hearing was in response to this reference.

For the Central Government and States, the decision reinforces the constitutional autonomy of the President and Governors. For legislatures, it signals that delays in assent may not be challenged unless the delay becomes indefensibly long. For courts, it sets boundaries: they cannot prescribe deadlines but may act if there is unreasonable inaction.

In federal governance and legislative practice, the ruling may reshape how bills are processed and how political deadlock around assent is handled. It concludes a landmark question around the balance of power between legislature, executive and judiciary. [Rh]

Suggested Reading: