ASSENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY: ANALYSING THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT ON THE PRESIDENT AND THE GOVERNOR’S POWER

The Supreme Court recently delivered its advisory opinion on a presidential reference containing 14 constitutional questions concerning the powers of the President and Governors in granting assent to Bills.

- VALLIMIREDDY ABHINAV DEEP DORA & DR. Y SATYANARAYANA

The reference was prompted by an April 2025 two-judge bench ruling that imposed strict timelines on constitutional authorities for acting on legislation. In its advisory opinion, the apex court clarified that no fixed timelines can be judicially imposed for assent under Articles 200 and 201, rejected the concept of “deemed assent,” and reaffirmed that while Governors and the President must act within a reasonable period, constitutional discretion cannot be curtailed by the judiciary.

The judgment makes clear that a Governor has only three constitutional options under Article 200: grant assent, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. The Court held that the Governor has no authority to indefinitely withhold action or employ a pocket veto. Any prolonged inaction violates constitutional duty, and the Governor nor must respond within a reasonable timeframe consistent with responsible governance.

The Court held that the Governor does possess limited discretionary power while dealing with Bills, but this discretion operates strictly within three constitutional options: granting assent, returning the Bill for reconsideration, or reserving it for the President. Thus, discretion exists, but it is constitutionally confined and cannot undermine legislative processes.

The Supreme Court clarified that the timelines imposed by the April 2025 two-judge bench for the Governor and President to act on Bills were impermissible. It held that the judiciary cannot prescribe rigid deadlines for constitutional authorities when the Constitution itself does not specify any. The Court emphasized that the phrase “as soon as possible”in Articles 200 and 201 denotes arequirement of reasonable promptness, not a fixed or quantifiable timeframe. Any attempt to convert this phrase intoa strict deadline would amount to judicial legislation, which is constitutionally impermissible.