Particle.news
Download on the App Store

Supreme Court Rejects Judicial Timelines and ‘Deemed Assent’ on State Bills

The advisory opinion arose from President Murmu’s Article 143 reference prompted by an April Tamil Nadu case.

Overview

  • A five-judge Constitution Bench held that courts cannot prescribe deadlines for Governors or the President when acting on bills under Articles 200 and 201.
  • The Court ruled that judges cannot treat delayed bills as approved or use Article 142 to confer assent, setting aside the earlier two-judge directions in the Tamil Nadu matter.
  • Governors may not withhold assent indefinitely, and courts may issue a limited mandamus requiring a decision within a reasonable time without dictating the outcome.
  • The Bench reaffirmed that a Governor may assent, return a bill with comments, or reserve it for the President, and clarified the President is not obliged to seek the Court’s opinion when a bill is reserved.
  • The opinion answered 11 of 14 questions and will guide Centre–state disputes over legislation, with experts noting potential delays for economic and regulatory bills despite the call for institutional dialogue.