A Constitution Bench headed by the CJI B R Gavai, in its response to the Presidential Reference, opined that the Judiciary cannot tie President, Governor to fixed timelines.¹ Even though no fixed timeline, Court said that the Constitutional office of Governor is definitely subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.²

What Does It Mean

The Apex Court’s opinion comes in response to a Presidential Reference in which President Murmu sought the Supreme Court’s advisory views on fourteen specific questions. This opinion is significant, particularly in light of the Court’s earlier decision that had prescribed timelines for granting assent to Bills and had introduced the concept of ‘deemed assent.’

The Court has now clarified that the Judiciary cannot impose fixed timelines on Governors or the President for granting assent to Bills, nor can the notion of ‘deemed assent’ be judicially introduced. It has stated unequivocally that the functions under Articles 200 and 201 fall within the constitutional domain of the executive and are not justiciable.

While answering the reference, the Court reaffirmed the discretionary authority vested in the Governor. However, this also raises a concern: deliberate inaction by Governors—under the guise of discretion—could effectively translate into inaction on the democratic will expressed through the elected State Government.

The powers of the Governor and the President are constitutional privileges accompanied by duties and accountability. While judicial interference with their discretionary functions is neither advised nor constitutionally envisaged, deliberate inaction in the name of discretion is equally inconsistent with the spirit of responsible governance.