Supreme Court Clarifies: Presidents and Governors Face No Timelines for Approving State Legislation

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court provided a crucial clarification on Thursday afternoon, stating that the President of India and state Governors are not subject to timelines when approving legislation passed by state governments.

A bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, who retires on Monday, was addressing a Presidential reference regarding its April 12 judgment. In that ruling, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had determined that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi acted "illegally" by withholding approval for bills passed by the state legislature.

The court initiated hearings in August while emphasizing that the April order would remain intact; the court explained it was functioning in an "advisory" capacity only. Today, the court clarified that actions taken by the President or a Governor are not 'justiciable' – meaning they cannot be subjected to trial – and judicial review is applicable only after a bill becomes law.

READ | "Won't Overturn, Advisory Role Only...": Supreme Court On Presidential Reference

Here are 10 key points from the court's statement:

Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines that when presented with a bill (excluding Money Bills), the Governor must either assent, return, or forward it to the President for consideration, does not permit the establishment of timelines for a Governor to process bills.

Consequently, if a bill is withheld, it must be returned to the state Legislature.

Contrary to previous arguments, Governors possess discretionary power and are not obligated to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers when approving or withholding assent to bills.

Furthermore, the performance of their duties under Article 200 is not subject to judicial scrutiny.

The court may issue limited directives requiring a Governor to decide on a bill within a 'reasonable period of time,' but only in cases of 'prolonged, unexplained or indefinite inaction.'

As a result, immunity granted under Article 361 – which protects them from legal proceedings for official actions taken during their term – will not shield them from directions to process bills within a 'reasonable time' when faced with extended delays.

Presidential assent under Article 201 is not subject to judicially mandated timelines, and Presidential actions in this context are also not justiciable.

The President is not required to seek judicial advice for each bill reserved for their consideration.

The Constitution does not support the concept of 'deemed Assent' for bills, which might then raise questions regarding the status of 10 bills 'deemed to have been passed' in April.

Consequently, the court cannot invoke Article 142 to declare 'deemed assent' for bills.