Purushothaman Nambudiri v State of Kerala
Rule established
Once a Bill has been passed by the House and submitted for assent, the legislative process so far as the House is concerned is complete, and the Bill does not lapse on a subsequent dissolution of the Assembly. The Constitution prescribes no time limit within which assent must be given under Article 200 or Article 201.
Facts
- A Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly of Kerala.
- The Governor, instead of assenting to it or returning it, reserved it for the consideration of the President under Art.200.
- Before the President took any decision on the Bill under Art.201, the Legislative Assembly was dissolved.
- It was contended that the Bill lapsed on dissolution, since the House that had passed it no longer existed.
- It was further contended that the Constitution must be read as requiring assent to be given, or refused, within a reasonable time, and that inordinate delay was itself unconstitutional.
Issue
- Whether a Bill pending assent lapses on the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, and whether the Constitution imposes any time limit on the exercise of the power of assent under Art.200 or Art.201.
Held
- The Bill did not lapse. Once a Bill has been passed by the House and presented for assent, the House has discharged its function and the Bill has passed out of its control; its subsequent dissolution is therefore irrelevant to the Bill's continued existence. On the second point, the Court held that the Constitution prescribes no period within which assent must be given, and declined to read a limitation into Arts.200 and 201 which the text does not contain.
Ratio Decidendi
The legislative process has distinct stages, and the role of the House ends when the Bill is transmitted for assent. A Bill so transmitted is not a proceeding pending before the House and is not affected by the rules governing the lapse of business on dissolution. As to timing, the assent provisions confer a discretion in unqualified terms, and where the Constitution has not fixed a period a court cannot supply one by construction.
How to use it in an exam
- The classical authority on two propositions: a Bill awaiting assent survives dissolution, and Arts.200 and 201 contain no express time limit.
- Distinguish carefully what does and does not lapse on dissolution: a Bill pending in the House lapses, while a Bill already transmitted for assent does not.
- Note the modern qualification, settled in 2025. In State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481) a Bench of two Judges fixed timelines of one to three months and deemed ten Bills assented to. On a Presidential Reference, a Constitution Bench in In re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India (Special Reference No. 1 of 2025, 2025 INSC 1333) held that courts cannot fix timelines under Art.200 or Art.201 and that there is no doctrine of deemed assent, treating the earlier conclusions on timelines as erroneous. The reading in Purushothaman Nambudiri, that the text prescribes no time limit, therefore stands. What has been added is that silence on time does not license indefinite inaction, so prolonged and unexplained delay attracts limited judicial scrutiny and a Governor may be required to exercise one of his three options, though not told which one and not given a deadline.
- Use it to introduce the four courses open to a Governor under Art.200: assent, withholding of assent, return of a Bill other than a Money Bill for reconsideration, and reservation for the President.
Source
Source: AIR 1962 SC 694; (1962) Supp (1) SCR 753; citation verified and bench corrected on audit of 12 August 2026; judgment dated 5 December 1961, the 1962 report year being later; the Bill was the Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill, which became Act 4 of 1961; the specific holding that the Bill did not lapse on dissolution was NOT confirmed from a primary source and should be checked
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.