Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Judicial Review on Assent to State Bills

SC Outlines Limits of Judicial Review on Assent to State Bills

The Supreme Court has delivered an important advisory opinion on the constitutional framework governing the assent process for State Bills, emphasising the boundaries of judicial intervention. Responding to a Presidential Reference under Article 143 , a five-judge Constitution Bench clarified that courts cannot prescribe timelines for the President or Governors, nor can they recognise the concept of “deemed assent”.

No Judicial Timelines for Assent Decisions

The Bench observed that imposing deadlines for assent under Articles 200 and 201 would amount to rewriting the Constitution. Since the framers did not specify any strict timelines, the judiciary cannot insert them through interpretation. The court held that the separation of powers prevents courts from directing constitutional authorities to decide within fixed periods.

Scope for Review Only in Extreme Inaction

While assent decisions are largely non-justiciable, the court noted that it may intervene in rare cases of prolonged and unexplained inaction . A limited mandamus may be issued asking the Governor to act within a “reasonable time”. However, this does not empower courts to question the merits of the Governor’s decision.

Governor’s Options Under Article 200

Reiterating constitutional provisions, the Bench explained that a Governor can:

1. Grant assent,

2. Reserve the Bill for the President, or

3. Withhold assent and return the Bill with remarks (except in Money Bills).

The court stressed that indefinite withholding of Bills undermines federalism and legislative authority.

Reaffirming Constitutional Balance

The judgment reinforces the separation of powers, noting that the court cannot examine a Bill before it becomes law. It also clarified that Governors are not bound to seek judicial advice on every reference. The ruling aims to ensure smooth legislative functioning without diluting constitutional roles.

Exam Point

• 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143 .

• Bench: CJI BR Gavai, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, A.S. Chandurkar .

• Court rejects ‘deemed assent’ as unconstitutional.

• Judicial review allowed only for extreme, indefinite inaction , not for merits.