No timelines for President, guvs to clear bills: SC A larger bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that neither the President nor the Governors are bound by rigid, judicially imposed timelines to grant assent to bills, overturning an April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench that had prescribed strict deadlines and introduced the idea of deemed assent in cases of prolonged delay. The Court clarified that while constitutional heads must act with a sense of constitutional responsibility and dispatch, the judiciary cannot legislate fixed time frames where the Constitution provides none. Caption: The Supreme Court of India. Photo: Nin17/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0) At the heart of the dispute was the question of whether constitutional functionaries could be compelled by the courts to decide on legislative assent within a set number of days—and whether silence or inaction should automatically convert into deemed assent. The larger bench held that neither proposition aligns with the constitutional text or scheme. Instead, the Court underscored that the Constitution already offers a calibrated framework under Articles 111, 200, and 201, which governs the assent process for the President and Governors, including options like returning bills for reconsideration or reserving them for the President’s consideration. The ruling nullifies the April 8 decision by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu case where strict timelines for gubernatorial assent were laid down, besides introducing the concept of deemed assent in cases of inordinate delays. In that earlier ruling, the bench had attempted to address instances where bills—particularly in opposition-ruled states—were allegedly stalled at Raj Bhavans. Today’s judgment acknowledges the governance concern but states that judicially crafting deadlines and deemed assent rules risks rewriting the Constitution. Context and constitutional balance The case arose amid ongoing tensions between several state governments and Governors over delays in clearing bills, including in Tamil Nadu where a batch of bills had been pending for extended periods. The contested April 8 decision sought to streamline the process by setting time limits and supporting the notion that unreasonable delay equates to approval. However, the Supreme Court’s larger bench emphasized that constitutional conventions should guide timely action, not court-invented clockwork. While rejecting deemed assent, the Court affirmed that Governors and the President are not free to stall legislation indefinitely. They remain duty-bound to act “as soon as reasonably possible” consistent with the constitutional framework and must give reasons when returning bills for reconsideration. The bench called for transparency and accountability through reasoned communication, noting that opacity fosters mistrust and institutional friction. No judicial clock, but no carte blanche – Courts cannot prescribe hard deadlines where the Constitution is silent. – Deemed assent cannot be read into the Constitution by judicial fiat. – Governors must exercise options under Article 200 in a reasonable time and with reasons when sending bills back. – Bills reserved for the President must follow Article 201, with the Union acting expeditiously on aid and advice. – The President’s assent under Article 111 similarly follows constitutional pathways without judicially fixed time limits. By restoring the primacy of constitutional text over judicial innovations like deemed assent, the Court sought to protect separation of powers. It noted that if Parliament or state legislatures believe timelines are necessary, they can consider appropriate constitutional amendments or legislative measures, but courts must refrain from stepping into the lawmaking domain. Federalism, friction, and the path forward The bench took cognizance of a broader pattern: mounting friction in Centre–State relations, prominently reflected in gubernatorial delays. These delays can disrupt governance, stall budgetary measures, and impede reforms approved by elected assemblies. Yet the solution, the Court stressed, lies not in judicial deadlines but in invigorating constitutional conventions, rigorous record-keeping, and transparent communication among Raj Bhavans, state cabinets, and the Union. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that Governors act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in most matters, and their limited discretionary space cannot be turned into a veto through inaction. Where a bill is returned to the assembly and passed again, the Governor is constitutionally constrained to grant assent unless the bill is reserved for the President. The Union, in turn, must process reserved bills without undue delay, mindful of the democratic mandate of state legislatures. Caption: Raj Bhavan, Chennai. Photo: Rasnaboy/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subheading: The Court rejects deemed assent, urges constitutional responsibility By explicitly rejecting deemed assent, the Supreme Court signaled caution against shortcuts that risk unsettling the constitutional architecture. However, it also nudged constitutional heads toward timely, reasoned decision-making. The message is clear: dispatch, transparency, and fidelity to constitutional roles must replace opaqueness and impasse. Political reactions have been mixed. States that have long complained of delays expressed disappointment at the absence of enforceable timelines, fearing continued bottlenecks. Others welcomed the reaffirmation of constitutional boundaries and separation of powers. Legal scholars noted that the ruling may spur institutional reforms within Raj Bhavans and the Union executive—such as standard operating procedures, internal time targets, and public dashboards—to demonstrate accountability without necessitating judicially mandated clocks. What it means for states and citizens For state governments, the judgment underscores the need to maintain robust legislative records, promptly respond to queries from Raj Bhavans, and, where required, repass bills with clarifications to minimize scope for prolonged back-and-forth. For citizens, the takeaway is principled but sober: the Constitution already supplies guardrails, but it relies on good faith, constitutional morality, and political accountability to function smoothly. The Supreme Court’s decision preserves the Constitution’s design, even as it denies quick fixes like deemed assent. Its effectiveness now depends on how earnestly constitutional actors embrace their duties—acting swiftly, speaking clearly, and respecting the people’s legislative choices—without the judiciary having to set a timer. News by The Vagabond News

INDIA NEWS

No timelines for President, guvs to clear bills: SC A larger bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that neither the President nor the Governors are bound by rigid, judicially imposed timelines to grant assent to bills, overturning an April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench that had prescribed strict deadlines and introduced the idea of deemed assent in cases of prolonged delay. The Court clarified that while constitutional heads must act with a sense of constitutional responsibility and dispatch, the judiciary cannot legislate fixed time frames where the Constitution provides none. Caption: The Supreme Court of India. Photo: Nin17/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0) At the heart of the dispute was the question of whether constitutional functionaries could be compelled by the courts to decide on legislative assent within a set number of days—and whether silence or inaction should automatically convert into deemed assent. The larger bench held that neither proposition aligns with the constitutional text or scheme. Instead, the Court underscored that the Constitution already offers a calibrated framework under Articles 111, 200, and 201, which governs the assent process for the President and Governors, including options like returning bills for reconsideration or reserving them for the President’s consideration. The ruling nullifies the April 8 decision by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu case where strict timelines for gubernatorial assent were laid down, besides introducing the concept of deemed assent in cases of inordinate delays. In that earlier ruling, the bench had attempted to address instances where bills—particularly in opposition-ruled states—were allegedly stalled at Raj Bhavans. Today’s judgment acknowledges the governance concern but states that judicially crafting deadlines and deemed assent rules risks rewriting the Constitution. Context and constitutional balance The case arose amid ongoing tensions between several state governments and Governors over delays in clearing bills, including in Tamil Nadu where a batch of bills had been pending for extended periods. The contested April 8 decision sought to streamline the process by setting time limits and supporting the notion that unreasonable delay equates to approval. However, the Supreme Court’s larger bench emphasized that constitutional conventions should guide timely action, not court-invented clockwork. While rejecting deemed assent, the Court affirmed that Governors and the President are not free to stall legislation indefinitely. They remain duty-bound to act “as soon as reasonably possible” consistent with the constitutional framework and must give reasons when returning bills for reconsideration. The bench called for transparency and accountability through reasoned communication, noting that opacity fosters mistrust and institutional friction. No judicial clock, but no carte blanche – Courts cannot prescribe hard deadlines where the Constitution is silent. – Deemed assent cannot be read into the Constitution by judicial fiat. – Governors must exercise options under Article 200 in a reasonable time and with reasons when sending bills back. – Bills reserved for the President must follow Article 201, with the Union acting expeditiously on aid and advice. – The President’s assent under Article 111 similarly follows constitutional pathways without judicially fixed time limits. By restoring the primacy of constitutional text over judicial innovations like deemed assent, the Court sought to protect separation of powers. It noted that if Parliament or state legislatures believe timelines are necessary, they can consider appropriate constitutional amendments or legislative measures, but courts must refrain from stepping into the lawmaking domain. Federalism, friction, and the path forward The bench took cognizance of a broader pattern: mounting friction in Centre–State relations, prominently reflected in gubernatorial delays. These delays can disrupt governance, stall budgetary measures, and impede reforms approved by elected assemblies. Yet the solution, the Court stressed, lies not in judicial deadlines but in invigorating constitutional conventions, rigorous record-keeping, and transparent communication among Raj Bhavans, state cabinets, and the Union. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that Governors act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in most matters, and their limited discretionary space cannot be turned into a veto through inaction. Where a bill is returned to the assembly and passed again, the Governor is constitutionally constrained to grant assent unless the bill is reserved for the President. The Union, in turn, must process reserved bills without undue delay, mindful of the democratic mandate of state legislatures. Caption: Raj Bhavan, Chennai. Photo: Rasnaboy/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subheading: The Court rejects deemed assent, urges constitutional responsibility By explicitly rejecting deemed assent, the Supreme Court signaled caution against shortcuts that risk unsettling the constitutional architecture. However, it also nudged constitutional heads toward timely, reasoned decision-making. The message is clear: dispatch, transparency, and fidelity to constitutional roles must replace opaqueness and impasse. Political reactions have been mixed. States that have long complained of delays expressed disappointment at the absence of enforceable timelines, fearing continued bottlenecks. Others welcomed the reaffirmation of constitutional boundaries and separation of powers. Legal scholars noted that the ruling may spur institutional reforms within Raj Bhavans and the Union executive—such as standard operating procedures, internal time targets, and public dashboards—to demonstrate accountability without necessitating judicially mandated clocks. What it means for states and citizens For state governments, the judgment underscores the need to maintain robust legislative records, promptly respond to queries from Raj Bhavans, and, where required, repass bills with clarifications to minimize scope for prolonged back-and-forth. For citizens, the takeaway is principled but sober: the Constitution already supplies guardrails, but it relies on good faith, constitutional morality, and political accountability to function smoothly. The Supreme Court’s decision preserves the Constitution’s design, even as it denies quick fixes like deemed assent. Its effectiveness now depends on how earnestly constitutional actors embrace their duties—acting swiftly, speaking clearly, and respecting the people’s legislative choices—without the judiciary having to set a timer. News by The Vagabond News

TVN Nov 21, 2025 0

No timelines for President, guvs to clear bills: SC

A larger bench of the Supreme Court has held that neither the President of India nor state Governors are bound by court-imposed deadlines to grant or withhold assent to bills, overturning an April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench that had prescribed strict timelines and floated the idea of deemed assent in cases of prolonged delay. Acknowledging the governance concerns that prompted the earlier ruling, the Court nevertheless emphasized that judges cannot install a clock where the Constitution is silent. Instead, constitutional functionaries must act with responsibility, dispatch, and transparency, within the pathways the Constitution already provides.

At the heart of the case was a simple but consequential question: can courts compel constitutional heads to decide on legislative assent within a fixed number of days, and should prolonged silence be treated as approval through deemed assent? The larger bench answered both with a firm no. It noted that Articles 111, 200, and 201 set out a calibrated framework for assent, including the power to return bills for reconsideration and to reserve bills for the President’s consideration, without prescribing rigid time limits or deemed approvals.

The decision sets aside the April 8 ruling in the Tamil Nadu matter, where the court had tried to address mounting friction between elected state governments and Raj Bhavans by imposing time limits and treating extended inaction as assent. While sympathetic to the practical problem of bottlenecks, the larger bench warned that judicially inventing deadlines or deemed assent would amount to rewriting the Constitution. If time-bound reforms are necessary, it said, they must come through democratic processes—Parliament, state legislatures, or constitutional amendment—not judicial decree.

The Court rejects deemed assent, urges constitutional responsibility

By expressly rejecting deemed assent, the Supreme Court signaled caution against shortcuts that may unsettle the constitutional architecture. Yet the judgment also made clear that the absence of judicially created timelines is not a license to stall. Governors and the President are duty-bound to act “as soon as reasonably possible,” consistent with the constitutional scheme. When returning a bill for reconsideration, constitutional heads must provide reasons. This insistence on reasoned communication—paired with proper record-keeping—serves transparency, builds trust, and allows legislatures to respond substantively.

Key takeaways
– Courts cannot prescribe hard deadlines where the Constitution is silent.
– Deemed assent cannot be read into the Constitution by judicial fiat.
– Governors must exercise options under Article 200 within a reasonable time and give reasons when sending bills back.
– Bills reserved for the President must be processed under Article 201, with the Union acting expeditiously on aid and advice.
– The President’s assent under Article 111 follows constitutional pathways without judicially fixed clocks.

By restoring the primacy of constitutional text over innovations like deemed assent, the Court reinforced separation of powers and the limits of judicial lawmaking. The message is pointed yet balanced: constitutional responsibility and convention—not court-imposed timers—should move the assent process forward.

Context, friction, and federal balance

The dispute unfolded amid deepening Centre–State tensions, including allegations that gubernatorial offices in some states had delayed assent to bills with significant budgetary or policy implications. The now-nullified April 8 ruling attempted to streamline the process through strict deadlines and a deemed assent fallback. The larger bench took a different route, urging a renewal of constitutional conventions rather than judicial engineering.

Reaffirming settled principles, the Court observed that Governors ordinarily act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Their limited discretion cannot be converted into a pocket veto through inaction. Where a bill is returned and then repassed by the legislative assembly, the Governor is constitutionally constrained to grant assent unless the bill is reserved for the President. In turn, once a bill is reserved, the Union must process it without undue delay, mindful of the democratic mandate expressed by the state legislature.

Practical implications for governments and institutions

Without resorting to deemed assent, the Court charted a pragmatic path: strengthen systems, not shortcuts. Raj Bhavans and the Union executive can bolster accountability by adopting clear internal protocols—reasoned correspondence, standardized checklists, documented workflows, and transparent tracking mechanisms—to demonstrate progress. State governments, for their part, can reduce friction by maintaining thorough legislative records, responding promptly to queries, and, where necessary, repassing bills with clarifications that address identified concerns.

Political reactions have been mixed. States that have long complained about delays expressed disappointment at the absence of enforceable timelines, fearing continued bottlenecks. Others welcomed the ruling as a principled affirmation of separation of powers and constitutional fidelity. Legal scholars noted that, while the Court rejected judicially mandated clocks and deemed assent, the judgment could spur internal reforms that make the process visibly more responsive.

Why the rejection of deemed assent matters

Treating silence as approval may feel expedient, but it risks eroding accountability and distorting constitutional roles. The Supreme Court’s refusal to endorse deemed assent preserves the careful balance between elected legislatures and constitutional heads. It also underscores that meaningful oversight requires reasons, records, and responsiveness—not implied approvals that mask underlying disagreements or procedural lapses.

The road ahead: conventions over clocks

The Court’s ruling offers a principled but practical blueprint. It safeguards the Constitution’s design while nudging constitutional actors to act swiftly, explain clearly, and respect democratic choices. The success of this approach will depend less on litigation and more on institutional culture: how Raj Bhavans, state cabinets, and the Union executive embed transparency, maintain records, and honor constitutional conventions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court has rejected judicially imposed timelines and the mechanism of deemed assent, reaffirming that the Constitution already provides the tools to keep the legislative process moving. Now the responsibility shifts squarely to constitutional functionaries to use those tools with diligence and candor—delivering timely, reasoned decisions so that governance does not stall, and the promise of federal democracy is kept in spirit as well as in text.

News by The Vagabond News