Blog Banner

Blog Details

Supreme Court Rules Courts Cannot Fix Timeline for President or Governor to Act on State Bills

Supreme Court of India building during landmark constitutional ruling on President and Governor timelines

Supreme Court Rules Courts Cannot Fix Timeline for President or Governor to Act on State Bills

Vizzve Admin

Supreme Court Rules Courts Cannot Fix Timeline for President, Governor to Act on Bills Passed by Assembly

In a landmark interpretation of constitutional boundaries, the Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot prescribe a timeline for the President or Governor to act on state bills passed by legislative assemblies. The ruling came in response to a Presidential Reference filed under Article 143, in which President Droupadi Murmu sought clarity on multiple legal questions after disputes emerged across several states.

The reference placed fourteen key constitutional questions before the apex court, primarily revolving around the extent of gubernatorial discretion, delays in bill approvals, and the judiciary’s role in checking executive inaction.

This judgment reinforces the separation of powers and clarifies constitutional expectations for both the Union and state governments.

What the Supreme Court Held

1. Courts cannot set deadlines for President or Governor

The Court emphasized that constitutional authorities like the President and Governors exercise powers based on the Constitution, political responsibility, and conventions. Imposing judicial timelines would violate the principle of separation of powers.

2. Legislative procedures cannot be judicially micromanaged

The Court noted that delays, while problematic in governance, are not for courts to correct through directives, except in extreme constitutional breakdown scenarios.

3. Constitutional morality must be upheld

Although timelines cannot be forced, the Court stressed that Governor and President must act “as soon as possible”, as implied in constitutional conventions.

Why This Judgment Matters

Strengthens Federal Balance

The judgment prevents judicial overreach while reminding constitutional heads to respect the mandate of elected state legislatures.

Clarifies Gubernatorial Discretion

Several Indian states have accused Governors of indefinite delays in assenting to key bills. This ruling sets a constitutional expectation without judicial coercion.

Guides Future Political Conflicts

With the Court clarifying boundaries, future disputes on bill pendency are simplified and avoid ambiguity.

Key Constitutional Background

Article 143 — Presidential Reference

It allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law of public importance.

Governor’s Options Under Article 200

When a state bill is presented, the Governor may:

Give assent

Withhold assent

Return the bill for reconsideration

Reserve the bill for the President

The Constitution does not specify a mandatory time limit.

Implications for State Governments

Bills may still face delay, but constitutional pressure expects prompt action.

Governors must follow constitutional conventions rather than political considerations.

Judicial review remains available if there is evidence of malafide or constitutional breakdown.

FAQ Section

1. What was the Supreme Court’s primary ruling?

The Court ruled that judiciary cannot impose timelines for the President or Governor to act on bills passed by state legislatures.

2. Why was the Article 143 reference initiated?

President Droupadi Murmu sought clarity due to increasing disputes between state governments and Governors regarding pending bills.

3. Can the President or Governor delay bills indefinitely?

The Court stated they must act “as soon as possible”, guided by constitutional morality, but no judicial time limit can be imposed.

4. Can courts intervene if bills remain pending for too long?

Courts may intervene only if there is clear evidence of constitutional impropriety, not simply due to delay.

5. What does this mean for state governments?

States must rely on constitutional conventions and political processes, not judicial timelines, to push for bill approvals.

6. Does this affect central–state relations?

Yes. It clarifies boundaries and reduces potential conflicts over bill approvals.

source credit : Ananthakrishnan G  

Published on : 20th November

Published by : SARANYA  

www.vizzve.com || www.vizzveservices.com    

Follow us on social media:  Facebook || Linkedin || Instagram

🛡 Powered by Vizzve Financial

RBI-Registered Loan Partner | 10 Lakh+ Customers | ₹600 Cr+ Disbursed

#SupremeCourtIndia #IndianConstitution #Article143 #President #Governor #StateBills #Federalism #JudicialReview #ConstitutionalLaw #VizzveFinance


Disclaimer: This article may include third-party images, videos, or content that belong to their respective owners. Such materials are used under Fair Dealing provisions of Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, strictly for purposes such as news reporting, commentary, criticism, research, and education.
Vizzve and India Dhan do not claim ownership of any third-party content, and no copyright infringement is intended. All proprietary rights remain with the original owners.
Additionally, no monetary compensation has been paid or will be paid for such usage.
If you are a copyright holder and believe your work has been used without appropriate credit or authorization, please contact us at grievance@vizzve.com. We will review your concern and take prompt corrective action in good faith... Read more

Trending Post


Latest Post


Our Product

Get Personal Loans up to 10 Lakhs in just 5 minutes