The tenets of parliamentary democracy demand that while the head of state must act on the advice of ministers, the ministers, in turn, must uphold their responsibility to the people when providing that advice. Indeed, the very raison d’être of a democratic government is to uphold the primacy of the Parliament by ensuring executive accountability. This has been aptly put forth by Nicholas Barber, Professor of Constitutional Law and Theory at the Oxford University, in his work ‘Can Royal Assent Be Refused on the Advice of the Prime Minister?’[1] wherein he argues:
“The point of the convention on royal assent is to uphold the primacy of the democratic element of the constitution in the making of law. But just as it would be undemocratic to allow one person – the Monarch – to veto legislation, so too it would be undemocratic to give this power to the Prime Minister. In short, when presented with a bill that has passed through Parliament in a proper manner, the duty of the Monarch is to give assent – irrespective of the advice of her Ministers. There is no room for discretion. On its best interpretation, this is what the convention requires: if the Monarch were to accept the advice of her Prime Minister on this issue, she would be acting unconstitutionally.”
a. United Kingdom
The position in the United Kingdom is that once a bill has passed through all parliamentary stages in both Houses, it is poised for the conferment of ‘royal assent’. Historically, the Sovereign granted assent to bills in person in the House of Lords, attended by the Lords Commissioners. This formal ceremony was known as the ‘Royal Assent ceremony’. The Royal Assent ceremony continued until 1967, when the British Parliament passed the Royal Assent Act wherein the requirement of grant of assent in person by the monarch was made voluntary.
Although granting assent is a personal prerogative of the monarch, yet it has long been an established convention that the monarch does not withhold it for a bill that has received approval from both Houses. The process of Royal Assent comprises two stages:
first, the signification of the royal assent to a bill via the Royal Sign Manual on Letters Patent issued under the Great Seal of the Realm; and
secondly, the communication of the King’s Assent to both Houses of Parliament. In the United Kingdom (UK), royal assent is regarded as a formality and has not been refused to a bill since Queen Anne’s reign in 1707.
In Parliament of the UK, the procedure for obtaining Royal Assent begins with officials in the Public Bill Office of the House of Lords that manages and assists the processes relating to the House’s consideration of public legislation. First, a list of bills is prepared by the Clerk of the Parliaments. Thereafter, once a date for Royal Assent has been set, all the bills approved by both Houses are presented before the monarch for assent. In this regard, the monarch has no power to withhold assent to a bill, regardless of any instructions from the Government or anyone else. In Scotland, a period of four weeks is allowed before a bill is presented to the Queen for assent, during which any legal objections may be raised.[2].
The only ground on which assent may be withheld, that too solely on ministerial advice, is if the bill has failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements or if there has been a change in government between the bill’s approval and its presentation for assent. Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833 provides that the Sovereign may refer a bill to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for an advisory opinion on whether such bill contravenes a fundamental constitutional principle. However, the position in the UK does not clarify whether the Sovereign can initiate such a referral independently.
b. Canada
Canada’s Royal Assent ceremony traces its origins to the United Kingdom. Traditionally, once a bill was passed in identical form by both the Senate and the House of Commons, the Governor General, as the Crown’s representative, attended the Parliament to provide Royal Assent to such bill. In absence of the Governor General, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada acting as Deputy to the Governor General is presented the bills for Royal Assent. The Governor General signs a Declaration of Royal Assent, witnessed by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Section 3 of the Royal Assent Act, 2002 (Can) provides that assent may be given ‘in Parliament assembled’ or through a written declaration, provided of it is witnessed by more than one member from each House. The Act stipulates that the Royal Assent must be given in the Senate Chamber at least twice a year and for the first appropriation bill of each session of the Parliament. In all other cases, such assent may be granted by the Governor General or her Deputy by written consent. At the provincial level, assent is given by the Lieutenant Governor, who is appointed by the Governor General. As per Section 57 of the Constitution Act, 1867, when bills are reserved for Queen’s pleasure, she acts upon ministerial advice rather than the advice of the Houses.
The Supreme Court of Canada in Reference Re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada, reported in 1981 SCC OnLine Can SC 77, recognized that, by convention, neither the Queen nor the vice-regal representative (equivalent of a Governor in India) may, on their own, refuse assent to a bill passed by both Houses of the Parliament on the grounds of opposition to or disapproval of its policy. The relevant portion of the judgment in reference reads thus:
“As a matter of law, the Queen, or the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor could refuse assent to every bill passed by both Houses of Parliament or by a Legislative Assembly as the case may be. But by convention they cannot of their own motion refuse to assent to any such bill on any ground, for instance because they disapprove of the policy of the bill. We have here a conflict between a legal rule which creates a complete discretion and a conventional rule which completely neutralizes it. But conventions, like laws, are sometimes violated. And if this particular convention were violated and assent were improperly withheld, the courts would be bound to enforce the law, not the convention. They would refuse to recognize the validity of a vetoed bill.
This is what happened in Gallant v. The King, a case in keeping with the classic case of Stockdale v. Hansard where the English Court of Queen’s Bench held that only the Queen and both Houses of Parliament could make or unmake laws. The Lieutenant Governor who had withheld assent in Gallant apparently did so towards the end of his term of office. Had it been otherwise, it is not inconceivable that his withholding of assent might have produced a political crisis leading to his removal from office which shows that if the remedy for a breach of a convention does not lie with the courts, still the breach is not necessarily without a remedy. The remedy lies with some other institutions of government; furthermore, it is not a formal remedy and it may be administered with less certainty or regularity than it would be by a court.”
In Galati v. Governor-General of Canada, reported in [2015] FC 91, the Federal Court of Canada was faced with the question of whether the grant of royal assent by the Governor General to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, 2014 could be set aside by the court on the ground that enactment of the same was outside the legislative competence of the Parliament. It was contended by the applicants that the Governor General exceeded the scope of his discretion as well as his authority under the Royal Assent Act of Canada by assenting to the said bill. The Federal Court, however, dismissed the application and held that the Governor General’s act of affixing royal assent to the bill was a legislative act.
Therefore, the issue of whether the Governor General exceeded his constitutional authority in granting royal assent to the said bill was not justiciable. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below for ready reference:
“The courts exercise a supervisory jurisdiction once a law has been enacted. Until that time, a court cannot review, enjoin or otherwise engage in the legislative process unless asked by way of a reference framed under the relevant legislation. To conclude otherwise would blur the boundaries that necessarily separate the functions and roles of the legislature and the courts.
To review the Governor General’s act of granting royal assent, as the applicants request, would conflate the constitutionally discreet roles of the judiciary and the legislature, affecting a radical amendment of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the conventions which underlie our system of government, notably the right of Parliament to consider and pass legislation. The applicants’ arguments turn this principle on its head. On the theory advanced, the judiciary would adjudicate on the constitutionality of proposed legislation before it became law. That line, once crossed, would have no limit.”
The views of the Federal Court in Galati (supra) that the grant of royal assent by the Governor-General was a legislative act and hence, non-justiciable was in line with the view of the Court in Gallant v. The King, [1949] 2 DLR 425 wherein it was noted that the Lieutenant-Governor is a part of the legislature and the act of providing royal assent is also a legislative action.
c. United States of America
The Constitution of the United States, more particularly, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 thereof states that once a bill has been passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, it must be presented to the President. If the President approves, he may sign the bill; otherwise, he may return it with his objections for reconsideration. If, after reconsideration, two-thirds of both the Houses passes the bill, it becomes law. Further, if the President does not sign a bill within ten days of presenting the same, while Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law. Therefore, in this limited circumstance, the concept of pocket veto is not available to the President.
However, if Congress adjourns while the bill is awaiting assent and the President does not sign the bill within ten days, the bill does not become law.
d. New Zealand
The colonial legislative framework of New Zealand under the Constitution Act, 1852, vested structured discretion in provincial authorities while maintaining the supremacy of the Crown. Section 27 of the Constitution Act, 1852 stipulated that every bill passed by the Provincial Council must be presented to the Superintendent who was an elected head of each Provincial Council, for the assent of the Governor who was the representative of the monarch.
The Superintendent, in his discretion, could have either granted assent on behalf of the Governor or withheld assent or reserved the bill for the Governor’s pleasure. For a bill to become law, Superintendent had to signify Governor’s assent. Further, her Majesty, with the advice of her Privy Council could issue instructions to the Governor to guide him in exercise of his powers to assent to, dissent from, or reserve bills for her Majesty’s pleasure. The Governor was required to act in obedience to these instructions.
By the introduction of the Constitution Act, 1986, the Sovereign began to act on the advice of the Executive Council which is the part of the executive branch of government. It states that a bill passed by the House of Representatives becomes law when the Sovereign or the Governor-General grants assent. Section 3 of the Act states that the power conferred on the Governor-General are royal powers exercised on behalf of the Sovereign. These powers may be exercised either by the Sovereign in person or by the Governor-General.
Additionally, any reference in an Act to the Governor-General in Council also includes the Sovereign acting with the advice and consent of the Executive Council. The Prime Minister-designate is appointed as the Executive Councillor and he advises the Governor-General to appoint other Councillors. Section 3A removes any discretion of the Sovereign or the Governor-General, stating that they may exercise a power on the advice and with the consent of the Executive Council.
e. Australia
The structure of governance in Australia reflects a nuanced distribution of the Queen’s powers through her representatives at both national and state levels. The Queen of Australia is the formal Head of State. At the national level, the Queen’s powers and functions qua the Government of Australia are exercised by the Governor-General of Australia. At the State level, her powers are exercised by the Governor of the State. As per Section 2(1) of the Constitution Act, 1889, the legislative powers were vested in the Sovereign and exercised by her colonial Governors, subject to the advice of legislators. At the national level, Governor-General is not given ministerial advice on assent, the Presiding Officer of the House requests for assent and the Attorney General provides a certificate to the Governor-General regarding whether the bill needs to be reserved for the Queen’s assent or regarding any corrections.[3]
It is said that the role of the Governor-General is to ensure due process – that the bill was passed in Houses following the procedure. He is not concerned with the contents of the legislation as the act of the Governor-General is executive.
However, in the context of Governor (state level), the Court of Appeal in Eastgate v. Rozzoli, reported in (1990) 20 NSWLR 188, noted that while giving assent the Australian State Governor acts as a constituent part of the Parliament. If a bill is reserved for Queen’s pleasure, she acts upon the advice of Australian Commonwealth Ministers. The power to refer bills back to Parliament can be exercised only upon ministerial advice. At the states, the parliamentary officers seek State Governor’s assent. Ordinarily, the State Governors assent to bills without any ministerial advice, only South Australia endeavors to provide executive advice to the Governor.
f. Ireland
Ireland’s constitutional order provides a unique provision enabling the President to refer bills to the Supreme Court for its view on the constitutionality of the bills. Article 26 of the Constitution of the Ireland confers a power on the President, who, after consultation with the Council of State, may refer any bill to the Supreme Court for a decision on whether any provisions of the bill are repugnant to the Constitution. Such reference must be within seven days from the presentation of the bill to the President. If the Supreme Court holds that any provision of the bill is repugnant to the Constitution, the President declines to sign such bill.
g. Republic of Singapore
The Constitution of Singapore establishes a structured framework for the exercise of presidential discretion, setting clear time limits for decision-making while also ensuring safeguards against legislative overreach. Article 21A of the Constitution stipulates the general time limit for the President to exercise his discretionary powers. It provides that when the Constitution grants the President discretion in granting or refusing assent, concurrence, approval, or confirmation, he must signify his decision within the specified period after it is sought. The time period specified for granting assent ranges from thirty days to six weeks. However, it may be extended contingent upon any agreement between the President and the Cabinet.
Article 22H applies in cases where the bill or any provision seeks to curtail discretionary powers of the President. If, within thirty days, the President neither withholds assent nor refers the bill to the tribunal for its opinion on whether the bill curtails the President’s discretionary powers, then the President is deemed to have assented. Even when the tribunal is of the opinion that the bill does not curtail the discretionary powers conferred on the President, the President is still deemed to have assented.
h. French Republic
In France, the promulgation of legislation is subject to defined constitutional timelines. Article 10 of the Constitution of October 4, 1958, stipulates that the President of the Republic must promulgate Acts of Parliament within fifteen days after the final passage of an Act. It also empowers the President to request Parliament to reopen the debate on the Act, or any specific sections thereof, and such a request for reopening of debate shall not be refused.
i. Japan
168. As per the Japanese constitutional framework, the Diet (Parliament of Japan) is the sole law-making organ of the State. Article 59 envisages that if a bill passed by the House of Representatives is rejected by the House of Councillors, it becomes a law when passed a second time by the House of Representatives by a two-thirds majority of the members present. Article 74 states that all laws and cabinet orders must be signed by the competent Minister of State and countersigned by the Prime Minister.
Source
The Research on different constitution has been taken from the judgment State of Tamilnadu v. Governor of Tamilnadu (2025)
[1] Nicholas Barber, Can Royal Assent Be Refused on the Advice of the Prime Minister?, UK CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION (Apr. 7, 2025, 9:45 PM),
[2] David Torrance, Royal Assent, HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY (Feb. 26, 2024), HTTPS://RESEARCHBRIEFINGS.FILES.PARLIAMENT.UK/DOCUMENTS/CBP-9466/CBP-9466.PDF
[3] DEPT. OF PRIME MINISTER & CABINET, AUSTL. GOVT., LEGISLATION HANDBOOK (2017)