Supreme Court considers setting deadlines for presidential and gubernatorial assent to assembly bills

New Delhi, July 24, 2025

The Supreme Court has started a key hearing on whether it can set a timeline for the President and Governors to approve or reject state bills. This case follows President Droupadi Murmu’s recent reference under Article 143(1). She has asked the Court for an advisory opinion on the constitutional powers related to executive assent. The apex court’s move has opened a national debate on legislative efficiency and constitutional responsibility.

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud issued notices to the Union and all state governments. The Bench also includes Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar. The case stems from a request by the President. She asked the Court to clarify a ruling given by Justice J B Pardiwala on April 8. That ruling questioned if courts can require the President or Governors to act within a fixed time on bills passed by state assemblies.

The key issue is the delay in granting assent, which often blocks laws passed by state legislatures. The Supreme Court is examining whether such inaction can be called unconstitutional, especially when it causes a legislative vacuum. Legal experts say the ruling could affect federal balance and the division of power between the judiciary and the executive.

The Centre and state governments must respond on whether the presidential reference is valid and if courts can intervene in such matters.. Kerala and Tamil Nadu had earlier raised objections to governors delaying assent to key bills passed by their assemblies. This prompted a series of public and legal discussions questioning the role of governors and the scope of their discretion under Article 200 of the Constitution.

The bench clarified that the proceedings would not dwell on political questions but would focus solely on constitutional interpretation. It scheduled a preliminary hearing for July 29 to determine whether the Court should frame a timeline or merely recommend one. The outcome may set a precedent, influencing how future bills are handled by constitutional authorities.

The hearing highlights Article 143, which lets the President seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on important public issues.The court’s response, although not binding, carries considerable legal and moral weight.

Source