Supreme Court on Presidential Reference: No Fixed Timelines for Governors/President on State Bills

 

Supreme Court on Presidential Reference: No Fixed Timelines for Governors/President on State Bills

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference, addressing whether Governors and the President can be bound by fixed court-mandated timelines when dealing with State Bills.

Key Takeaways

1. Judiciary cannot impose “one-size-fits-all” deadlines

The Court held that neither Governors nor the President can be forced to decide State Bills within a rigid, court-ordered time frame.

• Imposing such timelines would amount to the judiciary assuming executive powers, which is unconstitutional.

• This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

2. No “deemed consent” after expiry of a court-set deadline

The Court rejected the idea that if a Governor/President does not act within a time ordered by the court, the Bill could be considered automatically approved.

• Declaring “deemed assent” would amount to the Court usurping executive authority, which is impermissible.

3. But Governors/President cannot delay Bills indefinitely

While courts cannot impose strict deadlines, the Bench emphasized:

• “Prolonged and evasive inaction” is unconstitutional.

• Governors and the President must exercise their discretion within a reasonable time.

• Sitting indefinitely on Bills undermines federalism and the functioning of elected State governments.

4. A balanced approach

The SC clarified:

• Courts can review undue delay
  (to prevent abuse of constitutional office),

• But cannot dictate exact timelines or assume executive functions.

This preserves both:

• Executive autonomy (Governor/President’s constitutional discretion), and

• Judicial oversight (to prevent obstruction by inaction).

---

Why this matters (UPSC relevance)

• Strengthens understanding of Centre-State relations under Articles 200 and 201.

• Reinforces the basic structure doctrine.

• Clarifies limits of judicial activism and executive discretion.

• Important for topics: Polity, Judiciary, Governance, Federalism.