Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Flexibility, Declines Fixed Timelines for Governor and President’s Assent to Bills

The Supreme Court of India has clarified that courts cannot impose strict or mandatory deadlines on Governors or the President for giving assent to bills passed by state legislatures or Parliament. This ruling reinforces the idea that certain constitutional functions—especially those carried out by high constitutional authorities—must retain a degree of flexibility** as envisioned in the Constitution.

The case arose because several states had expressed concern that their bills were being delayed for long periods by Governors, affecting governance and policy implementation. Some petitions sought judicial intervention, requesting the Supreme Court to direct Governors to decide on bills within a specified time frame. However, the Court declined to set such rigid timelines.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while undue or politically motivated delays in approving or returning bills are undesirable, the judiciary cannot create timelines that the Constitution itself does not prescribe. Doing so would effectively amount to rewriting the Constitution, which is beyond the Court’s authority. Instead, the Court stated that the spirit of cooperative federalism should guide the functioning of constitutional offices. It also pointed out that existing constitutional provisions already lay down the process: the Governor may assent, withhold assent, or return a bill—except money bills—for reconsideration.

This ruling is significant because it maintains the delicate balance of power between the judiciary and the executive. It also underlines the expectation that Governors and the President should exercise their powers responsibly and in good faith, without unnecessary delays, even as courts refrain from imposing artificial deadlines. Overall, the judgment preserves constitutional flexibility while signaling that constitutional authorities must act with fairness and promptness.