In the recent landmark case of State of Tamilnadu v. Governor of Tamilnadu (2025), Supreme Court of India prescribed the time limit for deciding the bills by the Governor of a State. But it is also important to note here what reasoning was adopted by the Supreme court while prescribing the time limit for Governors. The article presents the excerpt from that part of the judgment where the court penned down the reasons for the need of time limits in deciding the bills. The Court said,
It is crucial to understand that the prescription of a general time-limit by Supreme Court within which the ordinary exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 must take place, is not the same thing as amending the text of the Constitution to read in a time-limit, thereby fundamentally changing the procedure and mechanism of Article 200. This is because, reading such a time-limit into the provision neither militates against the underlying object of the said provision nor does it alter the procedure that is envisaged therein.
On the contrary, it only reinforces the sense of expediency and urgency that has been time and again emphasized since the adoption of the Constitution. The reason why the prescription of a time-limit does not tantamount to an alteration or amendment is because the time-limit that is being prescribed by cannot be understood to be a hanging sword on the Governor whereby even an unavoidable non-compliance would automatically ensue consequences of ‘assent’. The nature of such prescription is quite different which may be better explained through the concept of judicial review.
Any time-limit in the exercise of powers in terms of Article 200 of the Constitution should not be construed as timelines laid within the edifice of the provision, rather should be understood as timelines that would serve as a lodestar for the purpose of exercise of judicial review by the courts, a benchmark tool to aid and enable the courts in ascertaining if any inaction or malfeasance has occasioned in the exercise of such powers.
These timelines no doubt demand the earnest adherence by the Governor, however, these being nothing more than tools upon which scrutiny by judicial review is to be premised, remain as prescriptions within the realm of judicial review alone and do not transgress into the legislative bounds or amount to alteration of the text or authority of Article 200 of the Constitution.
The reason why these time-lines do not immolate the very fabric of Article 200 is because the said provision even with the infusion of these time-limit still remains markedly different from its counterpart provisions where such time-limits are legislatively prescribed. For instance, Article 75 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, where if no decision is taken within the stipulated time-limit by the President then the bills are deemed to have been assented to.
240. Thus, it is important to take note of this very fine but pertinent distinction that the prescription of a time-limit by Supreme Court into Article 200 of the Constitution does not fundamentally change the procedure which has been envisaged. While the reading in of a time-limit under Article 200 would have meant that there would be deemed assent upon failure of the Governor to comply with the said timeline, the prescription of a reasonable time period does not introduce any such mechanism or deeming fiction in Article 200.
241. What emerges from the above is that the fine but pertinent distinction between the time-limits that are expressly prescribed and those that are judicially evolved is only that in the former the consequence of deemed assent emanates from the provision itself whereas in the latter there could be no such consequence except to the extent that the courts judicially reviewing the action or inaction can direct a decision to be taken within a time-bound manner, or in exceptional cases like the one at hand, deem the assent to have been granted under Article 142 of the Constitution, which we shall again discuss in the later parts of this judgment.
242. When prescribing such a time-limit for the exercise of power under Article 200, we are guided by the inherent expedient nature of the procedure prescribed thereunder and the well-settled legal principle that where no time-limit for the exercise of a power is prescribed, it should be exercised within a reasonable period.
243. What would be a reasonable period would vary from situation to situation, however, in the present case, taking guidance from the timelines that have been prescribed by the Sarkaria and the Punchhi Commission, we have arrived at the view that in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, the Governor would be able to exercise his powers under the Article within the maximum period prescribed by us.
244. While the reading in of an absolute time-limit would have left the Governor with no choice but to comply with it, the prescription of the judicially evolved time-limits by us leaves it open for the Governor to justify the delay caused by providing reasonable grounds. Delay caused by the Governor beyond the prescribed time-limits would be justiciable and the courts, with deference to applicable judicial principles, would be fully competent to ascertain whether the delayed exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 was based on any reasonable grounds or not.
245. The prescription of a time-limit is with a view to ensure that the Governor is not conferred with the power of exercising a pocket veto under the scheme of Article 200, and hinder the law-making process in the State without the existence of any reasonable grounds. While the decision in Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala reported in 1961 SCC OnLine SC 361 does not make the prescription of such a time-limit by the Court impermissible, the decisions, adverted to above, vest Supreme Court with sufficient power to ensure that the procedure prescribed under Article 200 is followed by the Governor in a constitutionally permissible manner and in line with the principles of parliamentary democracy keeping in mind the nature of the power. Such an approach also ensures that the State governments are not left remediless in cases of malicious, arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200.
246. We also deem it necessary to prescribe a timeline for the discharge of functions by the Governor under Article 200. The Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions in their reports adopted this view, keeping in mind the importance of an expeditious decision under Article 200 for the smooth functioning of electoral democracy in the States. An elected government gets the mandate of the people for a limited period of five-years within which it is expected to legislate on issues pertaining to the electorate. If the Governor, for whatsoever reasons, exhibits reluctance or lethargy in decision making, particularly when it is concerned with the assent to bills, it severely impacts the ability of the government to act upon its mandate and deliver to the people who brought them into power.
Any obstacle created by the Governor, whether advertently or inadvertently, severely impacts the perception of the elected government in the subsequent elections and thereby also negatively affecting their chances of coming back into power. The problem is further exacerbated when the political party in power in the State is different from the one at the Centre, and the Governor should be more cautious and non-partisan in the exercise of his functions in such a scenario. Any deliberate inaction on part of the Governor in assenting to bills or reserving them for the consideration of the President, thus, has to be viewed as a serious threat to the federal polity of the country and the aggrieved governments cannot be left remediless, desperately waiting for a decision at the hands of the Governor.
248. It is not unusual for Supreme Court to prescribe time-limits for the discharge of certain functions, even in cases where no specific time-limit has been prescribed. Recently, in Periyammal (Dead) thr. LRs & Ors. v. Rajamani & Anr. Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 329, a two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court, of which one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.) was a part, directed all the High Courts to issue directions to all the District Courts to decide pending execution petitions within a period of six-months without fail.
249. We have already discussed that in Keisham (supra), a three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court fixed an outer time-limit of three-months for the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule. The Court pertinently observed that the said period was fixed “keeping in mind the fact that ordinarily the life of the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly of the States is five-years”. Supreme Court has also, in a number of decisions, set down and reiterated that the High Courts must pronounce judgments on reserved matters within a period of six-months.
Inaction on part of any constitutional authority being subject to judicial review, it is important that there are reasonably laid down standards of justiciability of such inaction, and the timelines prescribed by us serve that purpose. Even the Constituent Assembly had initially laid down a period of six-weeks for the President to take action on bills submitted to him under Article 111. However, that was later changed to account for any exceptional circumstance that may arise in the discharge of functions by the President or the Governor. However, the expression “six-months” was replaced with “as soon as possible”, which though not determinable, envisages an expeditious disposal of bills, unless in cases where some impossibility exists.
The prescription of timelines by us balances the objective of expediency as well as the desirability of having some flexibility in cases of existence of an impossibility in discharge of functions in an expeditious manner. Flexibility in the discharge of a function cannot be allowed to be stretched to an extent that renders the very object underlying such function otiose, resulting into the proverbial snapping of the constitutional machinery.
250. Keeping in mind the constitutional significance of Article 200 and the role it plays in the federal polity of the country, the following timelines are being prescribed. Failure to comply with these timelines would make the inaction of the Governors subject to judicial review by the courts:
(i) In case of either withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration of the President upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such an action forthwith subject to a maximum period of one-month;
(ii) In case of withholding of assent contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the bill together with a message within a maximum period of three-months;
(iii) In case of reservation of bills for the consideration of the President contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of three months;
In case of presentation of bill after reconsideration in accordance with the first proviso, the Governor must grant assent forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one-month re to comply with the timelines prescribed above would make the inaction on part of the Governor amenable to judicial review.
Reference
State of Tamilnadu v. Governor of Tamilnadu (2025)