The Supreme Court is currently examining the extent of a Governor's power to delay acting on bills passed by a state assembly, with a focus on Tamil Nadu. This issue has sparked significant debate regarding the balance of power between the Governor and the elected state government.

The core question before the Supreme Court is whether a Governor can indefinitely delay acting on bills, potentially frustrating the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives in the legislature. The court is grappling with the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which deals with the Governor's power to assent to bills. While Article 200 directs the Governor to act "as soon as possible," it doesn't specify a concrete timeline, leading to situations where Governors have withheld assent for extended periods.

Representing the Tamil Nadu government, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that a Governor is largely a figurehead, bound by the advice of the council of ministers headed by the Chief Minister. He contended that allowing Governors to indefinitely withhold assent, even to money bills, would effectively make them "super Chief Ministers," undermining the elected government's authority. Singhvi stated that permitting the Governor to have a dominating position over the state executive and legislature would be like having "two swords in the same scabbard". He argued that the Governor is bound by the advice of ministers in returning a bill or referring it to the President, acting as a facilitator rather than a source of confusion or chaos.

The Supreme Court has previously addressed similar concerns. In April 2025, the Court criticized the Tamil Nadu Governor's decision to withhold assent to 10 bills, declaring it "illegal" and "arbitrary" and setting a three-month timeline for the President to clear bills. The court emphasized that Governors cannot sit on bills indefinitely and that inaction amounts to a constitutional breach. It clarified that the "withholding of assent is not an independent or indefinite option," and the concepts of pocket veto or absolute veto do not exist in the Indian Constitution.

However, the President subsequently referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, raising concerns about the April ruling's interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 and questioning whether the court can impose timelines where the Constitution is silent. This Presidential reference is what the Supreme Court is currently hearing.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, argued that state governments cannot invoke Article 32 to seek a writ against a Governor, who is not answerable to a court for their decisions while holding the constitutional post. He argued that the Governor acts on the advice of the state cabinet, not the central cabinet. The Centre has generally opposed states filing petitions against the President and Governors.

The Supreme Court has questioned whether the absence of a specific timeline in the Constitution allows a Governor to indefinitely delay decisions on bills. The Court has also stated that delaying decisions indefinitely goes against what the framers of the Constitution intended. The debate also encompasses the balance of power in India's federal structure. Concerns have been raised that allowing Governors to block or delay state legislation indefinitely could grant the Centre a de facto veto over matters in the State List, diminishing state autonomy and distorting the federal compact.