No Timelines, No Deemed Assent: Supreme Court Constitution Bench Answers the Presidential Reference on Governors' Powers Over Bills

In April 2025, a two-judge bench in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills and, invoking Article 142, held that re-passed Tamil Nadu Bills stalled with the Governor were deemed to have received assent. The ruling set off an intense constitutional debate over whether courts could supply what Articles 200 and 201 leave open.

In May 2025, President Droupadi Murmu referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) — the sixteenth Presidential Reference. After extensive hearings, the Constitution Bench delivered its advisory opinion on 20 November 2025.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can constitutional courts prescribe timelines — and deem assent — for the Governor and the President acting on Bills under Articles 200 and 201?

Timelines and Deemed Assent Are Constitutionally Alien

The Bench held that no fixed, judicially enforceable deadline can be read into Articles 200 and 201: the expression “as soon as possible” in the first proviso to Article 200 does not convert the Governor's functions into a timetable that courts may police. The imposition of timelines, the Court reasoned, is contrary to the deliberate elasticity the Constitution has preserved in the legislative process.

Deemed assent fared worse. A Bill cannot become law merely because a constitutional authority did not act within a court-set period; courts cannot step into the shoes of the Governor or the President, and Article 142 — wide as it is — cannot be deployed to manufacture assent. The April 2025 directions in the Tamil Nadu case, both the timelines and the deemed assent of the pending Bills, were accordingly declared incorrect.

Non-Justiciable — But Not Beyond Accountability

The opinion holds that the Governor's options under Article 200 and the President's functions under Article 201 are not justiciable at the pre-enactment stage; judicial review attaches to the law once made, not to the assent process. Yet the Bench did not leave elected legislatures remediless: prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction on a Bill invites a limited review in which a court may call upon the authority to decide — without dictating the outcome or fixing a deadline. Indefinitely sitting on Bills without following the constitutional procedure, the Court cautioned, would be against the interest of federalism, and a Governor cannot function as a rival power centre to the elected government. The President, it added, is not obliged to seek the Court's opinion under Article 143 on every reserved Bill.

What the Court Actually Held

• Courts cannot prescribe timelines for the Governor (Article 200) or the President (Article 201) to act on Bills.
• “Deemed assent” has no constitutional basis, and Article 142 cannot be used to create it; the April 2025 State of Tamil Nadu directions were declared incorrect.
• The discharge of functions under Articles 200 and 201 is not justiciable before a Bill becomes law.
• Prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction permits limited judicial review — a direction to decide, not a direction on what to decide.
• The fourteen referred questions were answered accordingly as advisory guidance for all constitutional actors.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It resets, within months, the framework of the April 2025 Tamil Nadu ruling that had armed States with deadlines and deemed assent.
• It redraws the separation-of-powers line: accountability for gubernatorial inaction survives, but mandamus-by-calendar does not.
• Pending State petitions over stalled Bills will now be argued as cases of “prolonged, unexplained inaction”, not breach of timelines.
• It is only the sixteenth Presidential Reference in the Court's history — and one with immediate consequences for Centre–State relations.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For States Challenging Gubernatorial Delay

• Build a documented chronology of the Bill's pendency; the cause of action is unexplained, indefinite inaction, not the lapse of any period.
• Frame the relief as a direction to consider and decide — a prayer for deemed assent or a deadline is now untenable.

For Union and Raj Bhavan Counsel

• Advise recording reasons and movement on every Bill; non-justiciability shields the choice among Article 200 options, not a file that simply gathers dust.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. While no deadline can be imposed, prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction can be reviewed, and a court may direct the authority to take a decision.

Its timelines and the deemed assent granted to the pending Bills were declared incorrect by the Constitution Bench in this Reference.

An advisory opinion is not a precedent in the strict sense, but it carries the highest persuasive authority and is expected to guide all constitutional functionaries.

Conclusion