In a significant ruling concerning the powers of Governors in India, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has delivered its verdict on a Presidential reference regarding the assent to bills passed by state assemblies. The bench, headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai, and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar, addressed key questions about the Governor's role under Article 200 of the Constitution.
The core issue before the court was whether Governors can be bound by specific timelines for granting assent to bills, withholding assent, or reserving them for the President's consideration. This matter arose from a plea by the Tamil Nadu government, which accused the Governor of unduly delaying action on several bills. Earlier in April 2025, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had addressed the standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi, deeming his refusal to approve 10 bills as "illegal and arbitrary" and setting a three-month deadline for Presidential and gubernatorial approval of bills passed by the legislature for a second time.
In its current judgment, the five-judge bench concurred with the earlier two-judge bench on one crucial point: that a Governor cannot indefinitely sit on a bill passed by the state assembly. The court clarified that Governors do not have unfettered power to stall legislative processes. However, the current bench diverged from the previous ruling by stating that timelines cannot be fixed for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills. The Supreme Court also stated that it is barred from giving deemed assent to the bills.
The bench noted that prescribing fixed timelines would contradict the Constitution's inherent flexibility. Instead, the court emphasized that Governors have three options under Article 200: grant assent to a bill, refer it to the President for consideration, or withhold assent and return the bill to the assembly with comments for reconsideration. The Supreme Court clarified that the governor has discretion while exercising options under Article 200 for referring a bill passed by the State Assembly to the president for consideration or for returning it to the legislature with his comments and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The governor has no option to withhold a bill simpliciter.
While the court refrained from setting rigid deadlines, it affirmed that an aggrieved state government can approach the Supreme Court if a Governor unduly delays acting on a bill. Even in such cases, the court's intervention would be limited to directing the Governor to act expeditiously, without specifying a precise timeline. The bench clarified that while the governors continue to enjoy personal immunity, their constitutional office is subject to the court's jurisdiction.
The ruling also addressed the judiciary's role, stating that courts cannot intervene in the legislative process before a bill becomes law. The bench said the governor's legislative role under Article 200 cannot be supplanted by another constitutional authority.
This judgment arises from President Droupadi Murmu's reference to the Supreme Court, seeking clarity on whether timelines can be imposed on Governors in the absence of constitutionally prescribed limits. The Supreme Court's response balances the need for timely decision-making with the constitutional autonomy granted to the office of the Governor.
