Overview
- A five-judge Constitution Bench said no timelines can be imposed on Governors or the President to act on state Bills and rejected any doctrine of deemed assent.
- The Court created a limited mandamus remedy under which judges may direct a decision within a reasonable period when delays are prolonged, unexplained and indefinite, without dictating the outcome.
- The bench, led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, emphasized that an Article 143 reference is advisory and cannot reopen or overturn binding precedent under Article 141.
- The opinion stands at odds with an April 8 two-judge ruling that barred a pocket veto and set a three-month deadline for action on Bills, sharpening questions about the earlier judgment’s practical effect.
- Analysts say the absence of fixed deadlines restores discretion to Raj Bhavans and the Union and leaves uncertainty over what counts as a reasonable time, setting the stage for further litigation.