Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of a writ petition filed by the State of Punjab challenging the Governor's decision to reserve two Bills for the President's consideration, after the State informed the Court that assent had been refused to one Bill and queries had been raised on the other.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing Punjab's plea seeking a declaration of deemed assent to the two Bills on account of alleged inaction by the President.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat for Punjab informed the Court that assent had been refused to one of the Bills, while queries had been sent to the state in relation to the other Bill.

The two Bills involved in the petition are the Sikh Gurudwaras (Amendment) Bill, 2023 and the Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023. Farasat informed the court that the Punjab Police Bill has been returned and queries had been sent regarding the Sikh Gurudwaras Bill. T 

He said that the State was in the process of responding to the queries and requested the Court to adjourn the matter for two weeks. He said that if the cause of action continued to survive, he would press the petition.

However, the CJI questioned why the Court should keep the petition pending. Justice Bagchi pointed out that the issue was now governed by the Constitution Bench judgment on the President's Reference concerning the timelines applicable to assent to Bills.

Farasat submitted that although the six-month deadline was no longer applicable, the Court could still direct the President or Governor to take a decision if there was a delay.

Justice Bagchi observed that the period for considering the Bill would restart from the date on which the queries were sent. He therefore observed that “the delay is no longer there”.

Farasat then requested the Court to record his statement that Punjab would approach the Court again if a fresh cause of action arose.

The Court consequently disposed of the writ petition as infructuous, while granting liberty to Punjab to initiate fresh proceedings if required.

The Governor had reserved both Bills for the President's consideration after they were passed by the Punjab Legislative Assembly.

The Punjab Government had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the Governor's decision to reserve the Bills and the subsequent alleged inaction on the part of the President. It had sought a declaration of deemed assent to the Bills

The petition relied on the Supreme Court's April 2025 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case concerning timelines for Governors and the President in dealing with Bills. Punjab also relied on the Court's earlier judgment which held that a Governor who withholds assent to a Bill has to return it to the legislature for reconsideration.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 685/2025

Case Title – State of Punjab v. Union of India & Ors

Tags: