Supreme Court Overrules Its April 2025 Verdict: No Time Limit for President or Governors

Supreme Court verdict: Have you ever thought—if a Bill is passed by a State Assembly but the President or the Governor does not take a decision on it for months… what then?

Will the Bill automatically become a law?

Or should the independence of constitutional authorities be given priority?

This very question has been at the center of a heated constitutional debate for several months. The issue, which began in Tamil Nadu, gained national momentum when a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court passed a shocking verdict in April 2025, saying:

“If the President or Governor does not act on a Bill within three months, the Bill will be deemed to have received assent automatically.”

Across the country, reactions were mixed—some called it a “constitutional reform,” while others warned it was a “blow to the Constitution.”

But now, this major debate has finally ended.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has overturned the April 2025 ruling.

During the hearing of a Presidential Reference sent by President Droupadi Murmu, the court declared:

• No time limit should be imposed on the President or Governor for approving a Bill

• A ‘dummy assent’—a Bill becoming law automatically due to lapse of time—

is completely unconstitutional

This new verdict is being seen as a direct reversal of the previous controversial ruling.

What Was the Dispute, and Why Was the Presidential Reference Sent?

The matter began in Tamil Nadu, where it was alleged that the Governor was keeping several Assembly-passed Bills pending indefinitely.

In haste, a two-judge bench ruled:

If three months pass without action, the Bill becomes law automatically.

This was the first time in Indian history that a Bill was considered passed without assent from the Governor or the President.

President Droupadi Murmu raised serious constitutional questions and invoked Article 143(1), seeking clarity from the Supreme Court.

She placed 14 major questions before the court—

the biggest being:

Can the Supreme Court interfere in a Bill before it becomes law?

What Did the Supreme Court Say? — The Detailed Response

In the absence of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the Constitution Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai delivered a detailed 111-page judgment on 20 November 2025.

The bench also included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul Chandrakul.

Their key findings:

1. The President and Governor Cannot Be Bound by Any Time Limit

The court said:

“The Constitution does not prescribe any time limit for the President or Governor. The Court also cannot impose one. Doing so would violate the independence of constitutional offices.”

2. ‘Dummy Assent’—Bill Passing Automatically Due to Delay—Is Unconstitutional

The court declared that the earlier two-judge verdict violated:

The doctrine of ‘Separation of Powers’.

3. Court Cannot Intervene Before a Bill Becomes Law

The court stated:

**“Until a Bill receives assent and is notified in the Gazette,

the judiciary cannot question its constitutionality.”**

⸻

4. Only Limited Intervention Allowed in Case of Excessive Delay

The court can only advise, not enforce, a deadline.

5. Major Constitutional Questions Must Be Decided Only by a Constitution Bench

The court criticized the earlier two-judge bench for deciding such a sensitive constitutional matter:

“Such serious issues must not be decided by smaller benches.”

What Happens to the Tamil Nadu Bill Now?

With this verdict, the Bill that was considered “automatically passed” in April 2025 is now invalid.

Without the assent of the Governor or the President,

the Bill cannot be considered a law.

This is a major setback for the state government and its legal team, including Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

Legal and political experts see the verdict as a big win for the Central Government—especially since only days earlier, the Supreme Court had struck down the Tribunal Reform Act 2021, causing tension between the judiciary and the Executive.

This new judgment restores the balance.

A Message to the Judiciary as Well

The court acknowledged that:

• Constitutional law is fundamentally different from general law

• Judiciary must not assume it is the sole authority to interpret the Constitution

• Constitutional power must remain balanced among all three pillars

This verdict is being described as a stabilizing step for India’s constitutional framework.

It makes clear:

• The roles of the President and Governors are not ceremonial

• Their discretion is an essential part of the constitutional structure

• Courts cannot interfere with their constitutional domain

This landmark decision has realigned the balance between democracy’s three pillars—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—setting a powerful precedent for future constitutional questions.