The Supreme Court of India decision on Thursday holding that it cannot prescribe deadlines for the president or governors to decide on granting assent to bills has significant implications for Indian federalism. The court said that since the Constitution itself does not lay down any time limits for such decisions, the judiciary cannot step in to set up timelines for either the governor or the President.This view came in response to a presidential reference seeking the court’s guidance on a Supreme Court judgment in April that had come down hard on the fact that the governor of Tamil Nadu was sitting on bills passed by the state assembly. The court had passed the legislation, describing this as “deemed assent”. It prescribed deadlines for governors to decide what they want to do with bills: sign it into law, reject it or pass it on to the President.However, on Thursday, the Supreme Court rolled back this decision, arguing that the idea of “deemed assent” would effectively mean a court is stepping in to act on behalf of the governor or president – something it cannot do.“Such a usurpation of the gubernatorial function of the governor, and similarly of the president’s functions, is antithetical not only to the spirit of the Constitution, but also specifically, the doctrine of separation of powers – which is a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution,” the Constitution bench headed by CJI BR Gavai observed.The court said that while governors should not be allowed to delay bills endlessly, the judiciary cannot force them to follow fixed timelines. The conflict dates back to 2023, when the Tamil Nadu government complained to the Supreme Court that Governor Mr. Ravi was delaying action on 10 bills passed by the state assembly. When the governor still did not decide, the assembly passed the bills again. Instead of granting assent, the governor sent them to the president.In April in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared the governor’s delays illegal. It held that under the Constitution, a governor has only three options: give assent, withhold assent or send a bill to the president for their consideration. The governor is not allowed to simply sit on a bill.In the same judgment, the two-judge bench set timelines for both the governor and the president to act on bills and held that excessive delays could be challenged in court. If governors go against the advice of the state government, they have a time limit of three months within which to decide on what to do with a bill.Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court granted “deemed assent” to all 10 bills. Under this article, the Supreme Court is empowered to pass any order necessary to secure complete justice.This move by the Supreme Court set off a political firestorm around India’s federal structure. Opposition-ruled states had alleged that their democratic mandate to pass legislation was being stymied by unelected governors appointed by the Union government. This judgment took away the so-called pocket veto of governors to place a check on elected assemblies.Soon after, the Modi government made a presidential reference to the Supreme Court, seeking clarity on whether such judicial intervention was permissible and whether the court could impose timelines or grant deemed assent. The clarification on the presidential reference by the Supreme Court’s constitution bench on Thursday overturns its April judgment.The power to sign bills into law, laid out in Article 200 of the Constitution, is a rare power that governors can wield independent of the state government. In most other cases, Raj Bhavans are bound to act on the advice of the cabinet.The court clarified that the governor’s powers under Article 200 “exist independently, regardless of whether he uses them on his own or with ministerial advice”. In the 2015 Nabam Rebia case, the court endorsed the Punchhi Commission Report, which maintained that the governor’s discretionary powers must be narrowly interpreted. But it acknowledged that giving or withholding assent under Article 200 is one such discretionary function.The bench on Thursday agreed with the position in Nabam Rebia that Article 200 does give governors discretionary power when it comes to giving their approval to bills passed by the Assembly.The court held that the governor must have discretion under Article 200 because certain constitutional provisions require the governor to reserve bills for the president’s assent, even when the state government is not in agreement.If the governor were bound by the advice of the state government even when that advice contradicts the Constitution, it would undermine his duty as well as the president’s to preserve and protect the Constitution, the court clarified.The court clarified that Article 361 in the Constitution gives the governor personal immunity, meaning courts cannot summon or question the governor directly for actions taken while performing official duties.However, this does not stop courts from reviewing the validity of the governor’s actions. The bench relied on the 2005 Rameshwar Prasad judgment, which held that even though the governor cannot be made to appear in court or file an affidavit, the court can still examine whether the action taken – or not taken – is legal, proper or even mala fide.The court added that decisions under Article 200 are not open to a merit review – that is, courts cannot judge whether the governor chose the “right” option.While there is no blanket deadline anymore, the judiciary can intervene on a case-by-case basis if a governor sits on a bill, because constitutional inaction cannot be protected by Article 361. However, under no circumstance can a court appropriate the function of a governor since such “deeming clauses” are not a part of the Constitution.Hence “by judicial intervention such assent cannot be deemed”, it said. The Supreme Court of India decision on Thursday holding that it cannot prescribe deadlines for the president or governors to decide on granting assent to bills has significant implications for Indian federalism. The court said that since the Constitution itself does not lay down any time limits for such decisions, the judiciary cannot step in to set up timelines for either the governor or the President.This view came in response to a presidential reference seeking the court’s guidance on a Supreme Court judgment in April that had come down hard on the fact that the governor of Tamil Nadu was sitting on bills passed by the state assembly. The court had passed the legislation, describing this as “deemed assent”. It prescribed deadlines for governors to decide what they want to do with bills: sign it into law, reject it or pass it on to the President.However, on Thursday, the Supreme Court rolled back this decision, arguing that the idea of “deemed assent” would effectively mean a court is stepping in to act on behalf of the governor or president – something it cannot do.“Such a usurpation of the gubernatorial function of the governor, and similarly of the president’s functions, is antithetical not only to the spirit of the Constitution, but also specifically, the doctrine of separation of powers – which is a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution,” the Constitution bench headed by CJI BR Gavai observed.The court said that while governors should not be allowed to delay bills endlessly, the judiciary cannot force them to follow fixed timelines. The conflict dates back to 2023, when the Tamil Nadu government complained to the Supreme Court that Governor Mr. Ravi was delaying action on 10 bills passed by the state assembly. When the governor still did not decide, the assembly passed the bills again. Instead of granting assent, the governor sent them to the president.In April in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared the governor’s delays illegal. It held that under the Constitution, a governor has only three options: give assent, withhold assent or send a bill to the president for their consideration. The governor is not allowed to simply sit on a bill.In the same judgment, the two-judge bench set timelines for both the governor and the president to act on bills and held that excessive delays could be challenged in court. If governors go against the advice of the state government, they have a time limit of three months within which to decide on what to do with a bill.Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court granted “deemed assent” to all 10 bills. Under this article, the Supreme Court is empowered to pass any order necessary to secure complete justice.This move by the Supreme Court set off a political firestorm around India’s federal structure. Opposition-ruled states had alleged that their democratic mandate to pass legislation was being stymied by unelected governors appointed by the Union government. This judgment took away the so-called pocket veto of governors to place a check on elected assemblies.Soon after, the Modi government made a presidential reference to the Supreme Court, seeking clarity on whether such judicial intervention was permissible and whether the court could impose timelines or grant deemed assent. The clarification on the presidential reference by the Supreme Court’s constitution bench on Thursday overturns its April judgment.The power to sign bills into law, laid out in Article 200 of the Constitution, is a rare power that governors can wield independent of the state government. In most other cases, Raj Bhavans are bound to act on the advice of the cabinet.The court clarified that the governor’s powers under Article 200 “exist independently, regardless of whether he uses them on his own or with ministerial advice”. In the 2015 Nabam Rebia case, the court endorsed the Punchhi Commission Report, which maintained that the governor’s discretionary powers must be narrowly interpreted. But it acknowledged that giving or withholding assent under Article 200 is one such discretionary function.The bench on Thursday agreed with the position in Nabam Rebia that Article 200 does give governors discretionary power when it comes to giving their approval to bills passed by the Assembly.The court held that the governor must have discretion under Article 200 because certain constitutional provisions require the governor to reserve bills for the president’s assent, even when the state government is not in agreement.If the governor were bound by the advice of the state government even when that advice contradicts the Constitution, it would undermine his duty as well as the president’s to preserve and protect the Constitution, the court clarified.The court clarified that Article 361 in the Constitution gives the governor personal immunity, meaning courts cannot summon or question the governor directly for actions taken while performing official duties.However, this does not stop courts from reviewing the validity of the governor’s actions. The bench relied on the 2005 Rameshwar Prasad judgment, which held that even though the governor cannot be made to appear in court or file an affidavit, the court can still examine whether the action taken – or not taken – is legal, proper or even mala fide.The court added that decisions under Article 200 are not open to a merit review – that is, courts cannot judge whether the governor chose the “right” option.While there is no blanket deadline anymore, the judiciary can intervene on a case-by-case basis if a governor sits on a bill, because constitutional inaction cannot be protected by Article 361. However, under no circumstance can a court appropriate the function of a governor since such “deeming clauses” are not a part of the Constitution.Hence “by judicial intervention such assent cannot be deemed”, it said. Submit