Background
Supreme Court affirms no timelines on President and Governors for Bill Assent Decisions: A 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark opinion in the 16th Presidential Reference (2025). The Court clarified that the judiciary cannot impose strict timelines on decisions by the President and Governors regarding assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
This reference was sought under Article 143, which empowers the President of India to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on significant legal or factual questions.
Static GK fact: Article 143 was first invoked in 1950 concerning the Delhi Laws Act and has been used sparingly in India’s constitutional history.
Reason for the Presidential Reference
Earlier in April 2025, the Supreme Court had suggested specific time-limits for constitutional authorities when dealing with state legislation. The Union Government expressed concerns over its long-term impact on federal relations and sought clarity through the Presidential Reference.
The Court has now reconsidered and reversed those earlier directions, restoring constitutional discretion.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
The Court emphasized the separation of powers, stating that imposing judicial timelines would be judicial usurpation of constitutional authority.
It further clarified that any notion of ‘deemed assent’ — assuming a Bill becomes law simply because time has lapsed — is not recognized in the Constitution.
The Court highlighted that Governors and the President cannot indefinitely delay decisions, as doing so would undermine constitutional morality, legislature’s will, and federal balance.
However, limited judicial review remains possible if decisions are influenced by malafide or extraneous considerations.
Static GK Tip: Judicial review in India is part of the Basic Structure doctrine, upheld in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
Article 200 Governor’s Options
When a State Legislature passes a Bill, the Governor has four constitutional choices under Article 200:
- Grant assent
- Withhold assent
- Return the Bill once for reconsideration
- Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration
Article 201 Role of President
Once reserved, the President may:
- Assent to the Bill
- Withhold assent
- Return the Bill for reconsideration
The Court reiterated that the President has no prescribed timeline for decision-making and is not obliged to seek the Court’s advisory opinion every time a Bill is reserved.
Significance for Federal Governance
This ruling reinforces constitutional roles of political executives and avoids courts micromanaging legislative–executive interactions.
It respects the spirit of cooperative federalism, while ensuring constitutional authorities are accountable, not paralyzed.
Static GK fact: India follows a quasi-federal structure with a unitary bias, meaning the Union has more authority in legislative matters.
Static Usthadian Current Affairs Table
Supreme Court affirms no timelines on President and Governors for Bill Assent Decisions:
| Topic | Detail |
| Case reference | 16th Presidential Reference (2025) |
| Bench size | Five judges |
| Core ruling | Courts cannot impose timelines for assent decisions |
| Articles involved | 143, 200, 201 |
| Concept rejected | Deemed assent |
| Judicial review | Allowed only for malafide procedural lapses |
| Nature of judgment | Strengthens separation of powers |
| Federal governance | Protects legislative authority of States |
| Governor’s options | Assent, withhold, return, reserve |
| Timeline requirement | Not specified in Constitution |
