Judiciary cannot tie President, Governor to timelines: Supreme Court The Supreme Court (SC) stated that the judiciary cannot set "one-size-fits-all" timetables for the President and Governors to dispose of State Bills (under Articles 200 and 201). The concept of 'deemed consent' (where a Bill is assumed to be passed after a court-ordered time frame) is considered unconstitutional by the SC. Implementing 'deemed consent' would usurp the constitutional functions of the President and Governor. Such usurpation is deemed "antithetical" to the Constitution and specifically violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. While rejecting deemed consent, the SC cautioned that President and Governors should not delay Bills indefinitely through “prolonged and evasive inaction. The ruling responds to a 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143, which sought clarity after the SC’s April 8 judgment that had imposed a 3-month limit. The 14 questions in the Reference were termed a “functional reference” involving day-to-day constitutional functioning between legislatures, Governors, and the President. The court stated it has the "institutional responsibility" to clarify "general questions of law" and "iron out constitutional creases" through this "functional reference." Governor's Options (Article 200) Three Options Clarified: The court confirmed that a Governor has three constitutional options under Article 200: Grant assent to the Bill. Reserve it for the consideration of the President. Withhold assent and return the Bill to the State Legislature with comments (if it is not a Money Bill). A Governor cannot simply withhold a Bill indefinitely without returning it with reasons. Judicial review cannot assess the merits of a Governor’s decision, but courts may issue a limited mandamus if there is prolonged, unexplained, indefinite inaction. Governors enjoy personal immunity from court proceedings under Article 361. Imposing uniform timelines on Governors/President is unconstitutional because Bills differ…
