Supreme Court Review of Gubernatorial Assent Timelines: UPSC Current Affairs Story Arc

Overview

This arc tracks a significant constitutional tug-of-war over the 'Pocket Veto' exercised by Governors and the President. It began with several States protesting against indefinite delays in granting assent to Bills passed by their legislatures. To resolve this, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143, seeking the Supreme Court's advice on whether the judiciary could impose time limits on the executive's legislative functions. While the Court initially explored setting broad principles, it ultimately ruled that Articles 200 and 201 do not permit the judiciary to fix specific timelines, reinforcing the executive's discretion but leaving the door open for continued federal friction.

How This Story Evolved

President invokes Art 143 to seek SC opinion on assent timelines (Item 14) → SC deliberates on this Presidential Reference (Item 23) → SC delivers verdict stating it cannot impose timelines, reversing prior expectations (Item 8)

1. 2025-05-16: Supreme Court to Clarify Presidential Powers on State Bills
   More details

   UPSC Angle: SC to clarify presidential powers on state bills under Article 143(1).

   Key Facts:

   • President Droupadi Murmu
   • Article 143
   • Supreme Court
   • Pocket Veto
   • No time limit for Governor to act on a Bill
   • President invoked: Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction under Article 143(1)
   • Question: Whether time limits can be imposed on the President and Governors to act on state legislature Bills
   • Issue: Governors are not bound by any time limit
   • Potential result: "Pocket Veto"
2. 2025-09-22: Supreme Court to decide on time-bound limits for Governors in granting assent to Bills
   More details

   UPSC Angle: SC to decide on time limits for Governors' assent to Bills.

   Key Facts:

   • The matter reached the Supreme Court through a Presidential Reference under Article 143, following disputes raised by multiple States.
3. 2025-11-21: Supreme Court on Presidential/Gubernatorial Assent Timelines
   More details

   UPSC Angle: SC cannot impose timelines on Presidential/Gubernatorial assent to bills.

   Key Facts:

   • Supreme Court cannot impose timelines on President/Governors regarding assent to Bills.
   • Articles 200/201 of the Constitution are relevant.
   • Reverses a recent SC verdict that had established timelines.
   • Governor can potentially use a 'Pocket Veto'.
   • Five-judge Constitution Bench
   • President
   • Governors
   • No timeline can be fixed for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by state legislatures
   • Inaction that is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite will certainly invite limited judicial scrutiny

Genesis

Trigger

On May 16, 2025, President Droupadi Murmu invoked the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143(1) following a prior SC verdict that had attempted to establish timelines for bill disposal.

Why Now

Multiple States (such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab) had raised legal challenges against Governors for withholding Bills indefinitely, creating a legislative deadlock that threatened the functioning of state governments.

Historical Context

The 'Pocket Veto' is a long-standing loophole where the Constitution says a Governor should act 'as soon as possible' (Article 200) but provides no specific number of days, unlike the 14-day limit for Money Bills in Parliament.

Key Turning Points

1. [2025-05-16] Presidential Reference under Article 143

   Shifted the battle from state-specific litigation to a high-level constitutional clarification.

   Before: Individual states were suing Governors. After: The entire framework of executive assent was placed under SC scrutiny.

2. [2025-11-21] Five-judge Constitution Bench Verdict

   Ended the speculation that the judiciary would create a 'judicial timeline' for Governors.

   Before: There was an expectation (based on a prior verdict) that the SC would fix a timeline. After: The SC reversed its stance, stating it cannot impose such limits.

Key Actors and Institutions

Key Institutions

• Supreme Court of India (SC)
• Governor's Office
• President of India
• State Legislatures

Key Concepts

Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143)

The power of the President to consult the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance. The Court's opinion is not binding but carries high persuasive value.

Current Fact: President Murmu used this on May 16, 2025, to clarify the timeline for state bills.

Pocket Veto

An informal power where the executive neither signs nor returns a bill, effectively letting it die through inaction because no time limit is specified.

Current Fact: The SC verdict on November 21, 2025, acknowledged that the absence of a timeline potentially leads to a Pocket Veto situation.

Article 200

The constitutional provision detailing a Governor's options when a bill is passed by the State Legislature: assent, withhold, return, or reserve for the President.

Current Fact: The November 2025 verdict explicitly stated that no timelines can be judicially read into Article 200.

What Happens Next

Current Status

As of November 21, 2025, the Supreme Court has officially declined to impose timelines, reversing its previous exploratory stance and returning the matter to the constitutional status quo.

Likely Next

States may now push for a Constitutional Amendment via Parliament to insert a fixed timeline into Articles 200 and 201, as the Court suggested the legislature is the appropriate forum for such changes.

Wildcards

A sudden surge in 'Reserved for President' cases could trigger a new round of litigation focusing on the 'spirit of federalism' rather than just the letter of the timeline.

Why UPSC Cares

Syllabus Topics

• Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
• Issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure
• Governor’s role and powers

Essay Angles

• Federalism: The Tightrope walk between State Autonomy and Central Oversight
• The Silence of the Constitution: When 'As soon as possible' becomes 'Never'

Prelims Likely: Yes

Mains Likely: Yes

Trend Signal: rising

Exam Intelligence

Previous Year Question Connections

• Whether the President can reserve a state bill for consideration without it being forwarded by the Governor. — Directly tests the mechanics of Articles 200 and 201, which this arc further clarifies regarding timing.
• Identifying discretionary powers of the Governor, including reserving bills. — This arc explores the boundaries of that discretion, specifically the 'discretion to delay'.

Prelims Angles

• Article 143 opinion is NOT binding on the President (Laxmikanth context).
• The term 'as soon as possible' in Article 200 has no fixed numeric definition in the Constitution.
• Money Bills cannot be returned for reconsideration by the Governor but can be reserved for the President.

Mains Preparation

Sample Question: Analyze the constitutional implications of the Supreme Court's refusal to impose a timeline for gubernatorial assent to Bills. Does this judicial restraint strengthen or weaken India's federal structure? (250 words)

Answer Structure: Intro: Define Article 200 and the 2025 SC verdict context. → Body 1: Arguments for judicial restraint (separation of powers, constitutional text). → Body 2: Consequences of 'Pocket Veto' on state legislative autonomy (center-state friction). → Critical Analysis: The gap between 'constitutional morality' (as soon as possible) and 'constitutional text' (no timeline). → Conclusion: Suggest constitutional amendments or conventions as suggested by Sarkaria/Punchhi Commissions.

Essay Topic: The Executive Veto: A Tool for Constitutional Balance or a Weapon for Political Deadlock?

Textbook Connections

Key Takeaway

While the judiciary acknowledges that indefinite delays by Governors subvert democracy, it has ruled that fixing timelines is a legislative task (via Constitutional Amendment), not a judicial one.

All Events in This Story (3 items)

1. 2025-05-16 [Polity & Governance] — Supreme Court to Clarify Presidential Powers on State Bills
   President Droupadi Murmu has invoked the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143(1) to seek clarification on whether time limits can be imposed on the President and Governors to act on state legislature Bills. This action follows a recent Supreme Court verdict that laid down a timeline for the President and governors to decide on state bills. There is no specified time limit for a Governor to act on a Bill, potentially leading to a 'Pocket Veto'.
   More details

   UPSC Angle: SC to clarify presidential powers on state bills under Article 143(1).

   Key Facts:

   • President Droupadi Murmu
   • Article 143
   • Supreme Court
   • Pocket Veto
   • No time limit for Governor to act on a Bill
   • President invoked: Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction under Article 143(1)
   • Question: Whether time limits can be imposed on the President and Governors to act on state legislature Bills
   • Issue: Governors are not bound by any time limit
   • Potential result: "Pocket Veto"
2. 2025-09-22 [Polity & Governance] — Supreme Court to decide on time-bound limits for Governors in granting assent to Bills
   The Supreme Court is deliberating on fixing time-bound limits for Governors and the President in granting assent to Bills, acknowledging that prolonged delays effectively amount to a pocket veto, which was not envisaged in the Constitution. The bench is exploring whether such timelines should be defined by the legislature through constitutional amendment or whether the Court can lay down broad principles under its powers of interpretation.
   More details

   UPSC Angle: SC to decide on time limits for Governors' assent to Bills.

   Key Facts:

   • The matter reached the Supreme Court through a Presidential Reference under Article 143, following disputes raised by multiple States.
3. 2025-11-21 [Polity & Governance] — Supreme Court on Presidential/Gubernatorial Assent Timelines
   The Supreme Court stated it cannot impose timelines for the President and governors to decide on granting assent to bills under Articles 200/201 of the constitution. This reverses a recent Supreme Court verdict that laid down a timeline for the President and governors to decide on state bills. The Governor is not bound by any time limit to act on a Bill, potentially leading to a 'Pocket Veto' situation.
   More details

   UPSC Angle: SC cannot impose timelines on Presidential/Gubernatorial assent to bills.

   Key Facts:

   • Supreme Court cannot impose timelines on President/Governors regarding assent to Bills.
   • Articles 200/201 of the Constitution are relevant.
   • Reverses a recent SC verdict that had established timelines.
   • Governor can potentially use a 'Pocket Veto'.
   • Five-judge Constitution Bench
   • President
   • Governors
   • No timeline can be fixed for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by state legislatures
   • Inaction that is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite will certainly invite limited judicial scrutiny