New Delhi, November 2025 — The Supreme Court has ruled that neither Governors nor the President can be bound by fixed deadlines to grant assent to bills, making it clear that courts cannot impose strict time frames for decisions under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai observed that enforcing such deadlines would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Bench rejected the idea of “deemed assent,” stating that automatically approving a bill due to delay would amount to the judiciary intruding into executive powers. However, the court stated that excessive or unexplained inaction by a Governor can still be challenged. In such cases, courts may ask the Governor to take a decision within a “reasonable period,” without influencing the nature of that decision.
Clarifying the constitutional process, the court noted that a Governor may approve a bill, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. While the Governor usually follows the advice of the council of ministers, the ruling reaffirmed that the Governor retains discretion when dealing with assent.
On the President’s role, the court said decisions taken under Article 201 on bills reserved for the Union are not ordinarily open to judicial scrutiny until the legislative process is complete.
