The Supreme Court on Day 6 of the Presidential Reference presided by a Constitution Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai, with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, orally observed that delays in granting assent to Bills cannot justify prescribing a blanket timeline for Governors or the President under Articles 200 and 201. The judges emphasized that the Constitution deliberately uses the phrase “as soon as possible,” providing flexibility, and warned that imposing rigid timelines may amount to judicial amendment of the Constitution. Justice Vikram Nath questioned whether such timelines, if judicially imposed, could be enforced through contempt, while Justice Narasimha asked whether “deemed assent” could validly follow from non-compliance.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, pressed that indefinite delays by Governors necessitate a general timeline rather than a case-by-case approach. He argued that consequences such as “deemed assent” should attach to non-compliance, ensuring that the will of the legislature is not thwarted. By responding to Justice Nath’s concern about conflict if a Bill with deemed assent were later challenged, Singhvi maintained that the Court would not be entering into the Bill’s merits by declaring deemed assent. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal representing West Bengal supported intervention but nuanced Singhvi’s stance, submitting that Article 200’s framework can accommodate timelines, ideally through constitutional amendment, but courts may still step in to prevent constitutional breakdown. He asserted that Governors have no discretion to withhold assent and must either approve, return, suggest amendments, or reserve Bills for Presidential consideration, as the will of the legislature is supreme. He warned that indefinite inaction undermines constitutional governance and cannot be permitted. The Bench noted that timelines could vary across Bills and emphasised the risks of rigid prescriptions.
The matter remains under consideration, with Sibal set to continue arguments tomorrow on September 3, 2025.
Appearances –
Solicitor General of India: Tushar Mehta (representing the Union/President)
Senior Advocate Manu K. Singhvi: representing the State of Tamil Nadu
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal representing the State of West Bengal