### Supreme Court Clarifies Governor and President's Role in Bill Assent: No Fixed Timelines The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling regarding the powers of governors and the President in relation to the assent of bills passed by state assemblies. The court emphasized that while governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent, there are no constitutional timelines imposed on them or the President to act on these bills. This ruling aims to clarify the balance of power and responsibilities under Article 200 of the Constitution, reinforcing the need for a cooperative federalism approach while also cautioning against inaction by governors. ### Breakdown of the Supreme Court's Ruling 1. **No Fixed Timelines**: The Supreme Court ruled that there are no fixed timelines for governors or the President to grant assent to bills, rejecting the idea of "deemed assent" as unconstitutional [https://www.rediff.com/news/report/no-timeline-to-okay-bills-no-deemed-consent-by-courts-sc/20251120.htm]. 2. **Discretionary Power**: The court acknowledged that governors have discretionary powers under Article 200 but must not exercise them in a manner that leads to legislative paralysis [https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Nov/20/sc-says-governors-cannot-delay-state-bills-indefinitely-but-rejects-fixed-timelines-for-assent]. 3. **Judicial Review of Delays**: While the court cannot impose deadlines, it stated that prolonged delays in granting assent could be subject to judicial review, ensuring accountability [https://newsarenaindia.com/nation/no-guv-bill-clearance-timeline-but-long-delay-is-reviewable-sc/62763]. 4. **Separation of Powers**: The ruling reinforces the principle of separation of powers, indicating that the judiciary cannot dictate the actions of the executive in this context [https://www.barandbench.com/news/presidential-reference-supreme-court-says-no-timelines-for-governor-president-to-act-on-bills]. ### Supporting Evidence from the Ruling - **Judicial Precedents**: The court's decision is based on interpretations of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which outline the powers of governors and the President regarding legislative assent [https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/no-timelines-for-president-guvs-to-clear-bills-sc-101763665894165.html]. - **Constitutional Framework**: The ruling emphasizes that imposing fixed timelines would violate the flexibility intended by the Constitution, which allows for a dialogue between the legislative and executive branches [https://www.indiatoday.in/india/law-news/story/not-appropriate-for-this-court-to-set-timelines-on-president-governors-clearing-bills-supreme-court-2822931-2025-11-20]. - **Impact on Federalism**: The court highlighted that allowing governors to withhold assent indefinitely without accountability undermines the federal structure of governance [https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/courts-cannot-fix-timeline-for-governor-president-to-give-assent-to-bills-passed-by-assembly-supreme-court/article70302088.ece]. ### Conclusion: Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling The Supreme Court's ruling establishes a critical framework for the relationship between state legislatures and the executive branch, particularly concerning the assent of bills. 1. **No Fixed Timelines**: Governors and the President are not bound by specific timelines for granting assent, which preserves their discretionary powers [https://udaipurtimes.com/news/supreme-court-verdict-on-bill-timeline/cid17840262.htm]. 2. **Accountability for Delays**: While fixed timelines are not permissible, excessive delays can be challenged in court, ensuring that legislative processes are not stalled indefinitely [https://www.jurishour.in/other-laws/governor-powers-assent-governor-bills-indefinitely-courts-timelines]. 3. **Encouragement of Dialogue**: The ruling encourages a cooperative dialogue between the legislative and executive branches, promoting a more functional governance model [https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/governor-cannot-stall-bills-forever-but-courts-cant-fix-deadlines-india-supreme-court-1.500353905]. This decision is a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional law, reinforcing the balance of power while ensuring that legislative processes remain active and accountable.