The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the President and Governors of states cannot be bound by timelines when it comes to approving Bills.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai unanimously held that it would be against the interest of federalism, if the Governor without following due process under Article 200 (power to governor to provide assent to bills passed by assembly), is allowed to withhold bills.

The bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar said, "We don't think governors have unfettered power to sit over bills passed by state assemblies".

Imposing such deadlines, the court said, would “trample upon the separation of powers” and run contrary to the “elasticity” the Constitution intentionally provides.

“In a democratic country like ours, fixing timelines for Governors is against the elasticity provided by the Constitution,” the bench observed.

The court also ruled that constitutional courts cannot grant deemed assent to bills pending before a Governor, noting that the two-judge bench’s use of Article 142 to deem assent for 10 Tamil Nadu bills was impermissible.

The bench said the Supreme Court cannot unconstitutionally take over the powers of Governors and the President.

However, the bench made it clear that governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills.

It further said that in India’s system of cooperative federalism, governors must adopt a process of dialogue with the legislature to address concerns over a bill rather than follow an obstructionist approach.

Seeking the court's opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President had asked, "Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?" She had cited Article 361 of the Constitution, which says the President or the Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of office.

While answering the Presidential reference in which President Droupadi Murmu has sought the opinion of apex court under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution, the bench said that governors have three options -- either to grant assent or send bills for reconsideration or refer them to the President.

The top court also deprecated the grant of “deemed assent” granted by the apex court on April 8 in the case of Tamil Nadu to the bills held by the state governor, saying it amounts to virtually taking over functions of constitutional authority.

The top court also ruled that the discharge of Governor's power under Article 200 is not justiciable.

The ruling came in response to a presidential reference seeking clarity on whether courts could mandate time-bound action under Articles 200 and 201.

In September, the five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai had reserved judgment and made it clear that the Centre should not expect the apex court to “sit idle” and powerless if a constitutional authority failed to discharge its duties.

The Union government had used the platform of the Presidential Reference, made in May, to question the Supreme Court for encroaching on the domains of the Governors and the President. The bone of contention was an April 8 judgment which imposed a three-month deadline on dealing with Bills placed for assent or consideration.