BREAKING: Supreme Court says Governor's assent not empty formality; inappropriate to judicially prescribe timelines for it

The Supreme Court today has delivered a unanimous decision in a special reference case which was registered on July 19 by the court's own motion after President Droupadi Murmu had framed 14 questions seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court on issues regarding grant of assent on Bills by the President of India and Governors of states.

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said in court today that Governor's assent is not an empty formality and the people's will expressed through the legislative branch is only decisive and conclusive once it receives the Governor's assent.

"It will not be appropriate for this court to judicially prescribe timelines for the Governor under Article 200..the decision of the Governor and President under article 200, 201 are not justiciable before they become law..", the CJI further said in court today.

Supreme Court further said that it is unfathomable for it to suggest bills can be brought to court rather than being opined on under Article 143 as referred by the President under advisory jurisdiction.

"The imposition of timeline would be strictly contrary to the elasticity that Constitution so carefully preserves. The concept of deemed assent presupposes that one authority can play another substitutional role for another authority.. that usurpation of powers of governor or president is antithetical to the spirit of the constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers", the bench has further held.

A five judge bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar had on July 22 issued notice to the Union of India and all the state governments in a special reference case which was registered by the court's own motion titled, "IN RE : ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA vs.".

The CJI BR Gavai led bench heard the Centre and various state governments for 10 days spanning over the last four weeks starting from August 19.

On April 8, 2025, a two-judge Bench in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor held that indefinite delay by Governors in dealing with bills, effectively amounted to a "pocket veto". The court laid down structured timelines: one month for Governors under Article 200 and three months for the President under Article 201.

This unprecedented judicial direction led to a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on 14 questions, including whether courts can judicially craft timelines where the Constitution is silent, whether “deemed assent” is permissible, and the permissible scope of judicial review. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor and the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion, President Murmu had stated.

The five-judge Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai has underlined that it is not sitting in appeal against the April judgment, but only rendering an advisory opinion, after the President's reference. The April verdict stressed that constitutional actors must act “with all possible speed” and prescribed outer limits for assent to prevent indefinite executive inaction. The judgment drew parallels with past rulings where the Court introduced timelines to prevent abuse, such as in disqualification proceedings by Speakers. It is this attempt to judicially enforce deadlines that now stands questioned.

President Murmu asked if in light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent or otherwise? “Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?”, the President further asked.

Case Title: In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India

Case Number: Special Reference Case No. 1 of 2025

Bench: CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar

Judgment Date: November 20, 2025