Article 142 and Timelines for Gubernatorial Assent

Background

Article 200 gives a Governor four options on a Bill passed by the State legislature: assent, withhold assent, return it (if not a Money Bill) for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. The Article uses the phrase 'as soon as possible' but fixes no outer time limit — a gap exploited when Governors sat on Bills for months or years in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab and Telangana.

In April 2025 a two-judge bench held that the Tamil Nadu Governor's withholding of ten Bills was illegal, prescribed a three-month ceiling for gubernatorial decisions, and invoked Article 142 to deem the Bills assented — the first time a court had done so.

The Presidential Reference

• In May 2025 the President referred 14 questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1), asking whether courts may impose timelines absent express constitutional text.
• Key issues: is the Governor's discretion under Article 200 justiciable; can 'deemed assent' be granted under Article 142; and does Article 361 immunity bar judicial review?
• The Constitution Bench's advisory opinion is not binding in the manner of a judgment, but carries great persuasive weight.

Analysis

The controversy lies at the intersection of federalism, separation of powers and constitutional silence. Supporters of timelines argue that an indefinite 'pocket veto' negates the democratic will of an elected Assembly and violates the Shamsher Singh (1974) principle that the Governor acts on ministerial advice. Critics warn that courts writing deadlines into the text amounts to amendment by interpretation.

• Way forward: a constitutional amendment fixing timelines, as the Punchhi Commission proposed.
• Codify the Governor's consultative role with the Council of Ministers before reservation.
• Institutionalise the Inter-State Council to resolve Centre–State frictions politically rather than judicially.