Supreme Court limits Governor and President assent powers

Source: The post Supreme Court limits Governor and President assent powers has been created, based on the article “A proclamation of democracy in legislative process” published in “The Hindu” on 16 April 2025. Supreme Court limits Governor and President assent powers.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Polity-Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.

Context: The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu marks a historic intervention in legislative processes. By invoking Article 142, the Court imposed time limits on gubernatorial and presidential assent to State Bills. This challenges long-standing assumptions about discretionary powers and affirms legislative supremacy.

For detailed information on Supreme Court defines limits of Governor’s powers read this article here

How Did the Court Interpret the Constitution?

1. Articles 200 and 201: The Court clarified the roles of the Governor and President in the State legislative process. If a Bill is re-passed by the legislature, the Governor must assent. The President too must respond within a fixed time.
2. Use of Article 142: The Court used this provision to set deadlines for gubernatorial and presidential responses, introducing the idea of “deemed assent” if no action is taken.
3. Judicial Realism: The Court adopted a modern and dynamic interpretation of the Constitution, similar to what it did in the Puttaswamy (2017) case on privacy.
4. Precedents and Principles: It relied on Shamsher Singh to restrict discretionary powers and B.K. Pavitra (2019)to promote constitutional accountability.

Constitutional Issues Addressed

1. Discretionary Limits: The judgment made it clear that withholding assent must be justified, not arbitrary.
2. Deemed Assent Mechanism: It introduced a provision where assent is assumed if a decision is not made within the time limit.
3. Filling Constitutional Gaps: Using Article 142, the Court addressed the lack of timelines and ensured that legislative processes are not blocked.
4. Use of Precedents: Shamsher Singh and B.K. Pavitra were central in affirming the binding nature of cabinet decisions and democratic values.

The Supreme Court’s Judgment Considered Historic and Controversial

1. Historic Nature: The judgment is significant because it limits the traditional discretionary powers of the Governor and the President. It ensures that the will of the legislature is not stalled indefinitely.
2. Controversial Aspect: The Governor of Kerala criticised the ruling, calling it judicial overreach. He claimed that it encroaches on Parliament’s authority and brings the President under judicial review, which he believes exceeds the Court’s jurisdiction.
3. Examples and Precedents: The Court cited the Shamsher Singh case (1974) to reinforce that Governors must act on Cabinet advice. It also referred to the Sarkaria Commission Report (1988), which advised that policy differences with the Union are not valid grounds to withhold assent.
4. Impact on Governance: The ruling requires reasoned decisions when assent is withheld. It removes the perceived immunity of high constitutional offices, promoting accountability and transparency.

Way Forward

1. Quicker Judgments: Courts should deliver shorter and timely verdicts, as seen in the UK Supreme Court’s 24-page Brexit judgment (2019).
2. Consistency in Hearing: Similar cases should be clubbed together and heard by the same Bench.
3. Better Internal Coordination: The judiciary should improve internal management to ensure clarity, predictability, and fairness in constitutional cases.

Conclusion: The judgment redefines executive accountability in the legislative process. It upholds democratic principles by limiting arbitrary delay and emphasizes that constitutional offices are not above scrutiny.

Question for practice:

Examine how the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu redefines the limits of gubernatorial and presidential discretion in the legislative process.