Particle.news
Download on the App Store

Supreme Court Advisory Affirms Governors’ Assent Discretion, Rejects Timelines and ‘Deemed Assent’

The five-judge opinion leaves courts only a narrow mandamus for prolonged inaction, prompting calls for Union clarity.

Overview

  • Delivered on November 20, the Supreme Court’s advisory in a Presidential Reference answered 14 questions on Articles 200 and 201.
  • The Court confirmed that a Governor may assent, reserve a Bill for the President, or withhold assent and return it with comments, and that this function is exercised at the Governor’s discretion rather than on cabinet advice.
  • Assent decisions are not open to merits review, courts cannot impose universal timelines on Governors or the President, and Article 142 cannot create any concept of ‘deemed assent’.
  • A limited remedy survives: courts may issue a mandamus only where gubernatorial inaction is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite, with Article 361 not barring such institutional review.
  • Analysts say the opinion largely negates the April two-judge ruling that set timelines, raises concerns about shielding assent-related decisions from review, and allows referral of re-passed Bills to the President as states and the Union weigh next steps.