Indefinite delay in clearing bills invites strict judicial review

In a significant constitutional verdict that clarifies the boundaries between the state executive and the legislature, a five-judge Constitution Bench has ruled on the limits of gubernatorial discretion. While the Supreme Court on Governor powers stated that the judiciary cannot impose rigid deadlines on Governors to clear bills, it sternly warned that "indefinite delays" would not be tolerated and could face legal examination.

This unanimous verdict, delivered by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, addresses the ongoing friction seen in various states where governments have accused Governors of stalling legislation. The Apex Court emphasized that while it respects the separation of powers and will not act as a stopwatch for constitutional authorities, the Governor simply sitting on a bill to frustrate the lawmaking process is unacceptable.

The bench, which also included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, set aside a previous two-judge bench order related to the Tamil Nadu Governor that had attempted to set a fixed timeline for action. The Constitution Bench clarified that the courts cannot intrude into the legislative domain by dictating schedules. However, CJI Gavai noted that any unexplained or indefinite delay in granting assent amounts to a violation of federal principles.

Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Court reiterated that a Governor has three clear options: grant assent, return the bill to the state assembly for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President's consideration. There is no fourth option to simply withhold the bill indefinitely. The Court observed that doing so would undermine the democratic process.

Furthermore, the Bench rejected the argument for "deemed assent"—the idea that if a Governor does not act, the bill should be considered passed. The Court termed this notion a "virtual takeover" of constitutional functions by the judiciary, which would threaten the basic structure of the Constitution.

This ruling came in response to a Presidential reference sought by President Droupadi Murmu in May, following earlier legal battles regarding the delay in processing state bills. Both Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Kapil Sibal welcomed the "illuminating judgment," marking a rare moment of agreement between the opposing sides on the clarity provided by the verdict.