President Questions Supreme Court’s Power to Set Deadlines on Bill Assent: A New Chapter in Constitutional Dialogue.

President Questions Supreme Court’s power .

In a significant and thought-provoking development, the President of India has raised a fundamental question: Can the Supreme Court impose deadlines on the President or Governors for giving assent to bills passed by the legislature? This query has sparked intense discussions across legal, political, and academic circles, as it touches the very core of India’s constitutional framework and the separation of powers.

 

Supreme Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court, in recent months, has expressed concern over inordinate delays by Governors and even the President in granting assent to bills. This concern was especially highlighted in cases from states like Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Telangana, where several bills had reportedly been pending with Governors for months—some even over a year.

In one hearing, the Court observed that constitutional authorities such as Governors and the President should not delay decisions indefinitely. The Court hinted at the need for a reasonable timeframe within which bills should be acted upon to prevent legislative paralysis.

The President’s Response: A Question of Jurisdiction

In response, the President reportedly questioned whether it is within the Supreme Court’s authority to impose such deadlines on the President or Governors. The President’s view underscores a classic constitutional debate: the limits of judicial intervention in executive functions.

According to Article 200 (for Governors) and Article 111 (for the President) of the Constitution, these authorities can either give assent, withhold assent, or return the bill (if it's not a money bill) for reconsideration. However, no time limit is specified in the Constitution for taking such action.

This absence of a deadline has led to both legal ambiguity and administrative friction. While the judiciary emphasizes the importance of timely decisions for legislative efficiency, the President’s view seems to stem from a concern over judicial overreach and the sanctity of constitutional roles.

What the Constitution Says

• Article 200: Empowers Governors to grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President.
• Article 111: Allows the President to either assent or return the bill (if not a money bill), but does not mention any time limit.

The framers of the Constitution likely assumed that constitutional authorities would act in good faith and within a reasonable time. But with growing political polarization, this assumption is now being tested.

A Question of Checks and Balances

At the heart of this debate lies the delicate balance between the three pillars of democracy—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. When the Court steps in to ensure bills are not indefinitely delayed, it is trying to uphold legislative primacy. However, the President’s concern suggests that such judicial directions could blur the line between oversight and intrusion.

Some constitutional experts argue that while judicial directions can guide and even recommend timelines, enforcing them might encroach upon the independence of executive office. Others believe that inaction or deliberate delay by Governors or the President justifies judicial intervention to uphold democratic processes.

In the case of : Tamil Nadu and Punjab Bills

In Tamil Nadu, multiple bills passed by the state assembly were kept pending for months by the Governor. Similar issues were reported in Punjab, prompting the Supreme Court to ask for explanations. In its remarks, the Court emphasized that such delays defeat the purpose of democracy and questioned whether the constitutional silence on deadlines should be interpreted as a license for indefinite delay.

What’s Next?

The President’s questioning of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is likely to spark deeper judicial review and possibly a constitutional bench hearing. It could also prompt Parliament to consider whether there’s a need to amend the Constitution to introduce timelines for bill assent.