The Supreme Court (SC) has recently taken a strong stance on the issue of Governors delaying assent to bills passed by state legislatures, raising critical questions about the role and responsibilities of these constitutional functionaries. The court's observations came during a hearing on a Presidential reference concerning the extent of judicial power to set timelines for Governors and the President to act on bills.
The core of the issue revolves around Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines the Governor's powers regarding bills passed by the State Legislature. This article allows the Governor to assent to a bill, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration (if it is not a Money Bill), or reserve the bill for the President's consideration. A key point of contention is the phrase "as soon as possible" within Article 200, which the framers of the Constitution included to guide Governors in making decisions on bills.
The Supreme Court questioned whether this phrase would have any practical effect if Governors were allowed to withhold consent indefinitely. Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai highlighted that the Constituent Assembly deliberately replaced a previous six-week limit with the "as soon as possible" clause, implying an expectation of expeditious action from the Governor. The CJI questioned whether the court could ignore the intent of the constitution makers, who believed "as soon as possible" meant immediately. The court has questioned if a Governor can "sit over a bill passed by assembly to frustrate law-making".
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that state governments cannot invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 32 to challenge the actions of the President or Governor regarding bill assent. He also stated that the Constitution does not allow for judicial orders that bind the President or Governors to a specific timeframe on legislative matters. Mehta contended that one constitutional body failing to perform its duties does not give the court the right to direct another constitutional body.
However, the Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the potential for Governors to effectively exercise a "pocket veto" by indefinitely stalling legislation. Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, argued that Governors are primarily ornamental heads of state and are bound by the advice of the council of ministers. He asserted that Governors do not have discretionary power to reject a bill passed by an assembly and that making a Governor's decisions non-justiciable would grant them supreme law-making authority, undermining the will of the people.
The Supreme Court's recent comments build upon a previous ruling in April 2025, where it declared that Governors cannot indefinitely delay acting on bills passed by state assemblies, deeming such delays "illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional". That ruling came in response to Tamil Nadu's petition against Governor R.N. Ravi, who had withheld assent from 10 bills. The court's intervention led to the re-adoption of those bills by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
The ongoing debate raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in states, as well as the role of the judiciary in ensuring constitutional compliance. The Supreme Court's scrutiny of gubernatorial actions underscores the importance of upholding parliamentary democracy and preventing the frustration of the will of the people.
