In a significant constitutional pronouncement, the Supreme Court has ruled against setting judicial timelines for the President and Governors to approve bills. The apex court’s Constitution bench maintained that judicial intervention to impose deadlines would undermine the separation of powers. The Court clarified that the executive’s actions concerning bills are generally not justiciable until they acquire the status of law. Responding to a presidential reference, the bench reiterated that the powerful Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be used to confer ‘deemed assent’ on legislative proposals. The Court also noted that governors have distinct options, including granting assent, sending bills back for review, or forwarding them to the President, but cannot arbitrarily delay them. The judgment highlighted that strict timelines are incompatible with the constitutional flexibility of a democratic nation like India. The Court also expressed reservations about past instances where it had granted ‘deemed assent,’ viewing it as an encroachment on constitutional functions, and stated that the exercise of gubernatorial power under Article 200 is not amenable to judicial review in the manner of setting timelines.
