In a decisive opinion delivered on November 20 2025 the Supreme Court of India (SC) clarified the limits of judicial intervention in the process of legislation at the central and state level. A five-judge Constitution Bench held that courts cannot impose fixed timelines on the president or state governors for giving assent to bills passed by legislatures. At the same time the court reiterated that constitutional authorities cannot sit on bills indefinitely without action.

The judgement arose from a presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India which asked whether the judiciary could direct the president or a governor to act within a specific time frame under Articles 200 and 201 when a bill is placed before them. The key question was whether courts could mandate deadlines or create a doctrine of “deemed assent” if no decision was taken within that period.

The Court ruled that while the governor or president must act with due diligence and cannot leave the bill pending indefinitely the constitutional text does not permit the judiciary to impose rigid timelines. Consequently the earlier two-judge bench decision that had set such fixed deadlines was declared erroneous.

In arriving at this view the Court emphasised the doctrine of separation of powers and federalism. It recognised that the governor and president hold constitutional discretion under Articles 200 and 201 and that imposing judicially-fixed deadlines would amount to judicial governance rather than review. The Court said the phrase “as soon as possible” in the Constitution cannot be equated to a specific number of days or weeks in all cases. 

At the same time the Court warned that such discretion does not give governors or the president licence to keep bills pending without justification. A governor who withholds assent without returning the bill to the legislature or reserves it without proper reasons risks judicial review. The message is that the key question is not the length of the time but whether the decision is bona fide, reasoned and within the constitutional scheme.

The verdict has important consequences for the balance between state governments and their governors, for the Centre-state relationship, and for the oversight role of courts. Some states and experts see this as strengthening the autonomy of the executive and enhancing flexibility in governance. Others caution that without clear benchmarks the risk of delay or misuse might rise. The debate between administrative discretion and legislative urgency is likely to intensify.

For policy-makers and legal practitioners the ruling underlines that while courts can review inaction or unreasonable delay they cannot substitute their judgment for that of governors or the president by prescribing deadlines. The practical effect may depend on how forthcoming constitutional authorities are in deciding on bills and how vigilantly courts monitor justiciability of their decisions.

In short the Supreme Court has drawn a clearer demarcation line. It affirms that constitutional discretion of the governor and president must be respected, while also sending a strong signal that inaction cannot become a tool of obstruction. Whether this decision stabilises the legislative process or opens room for more protracted delays will depend on its implementation in the coming years.