In a significant ruling that redefines the balance of power between the Union and the states, India’s Supreme Court has held that governors cannot keep bills passed by state legislatures pending without end — but stopped short of imposing strict timelines for assent.
A five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai delivered the judgment on Thursday, responding to an unprecedented presidential reference issued by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1). The court clarified that while governors enjoy limited constitutional discretion under Article 200, they cannot adopt an “obstructionist” posture that disrupts India’s federal scheme.
“We do not think governors have unfettered power to sit over bills passed by state assemblies,” the bench observed, stressing that India’s “cooperative federalism” requires active dialogue rather than executive stonewalling.
The bench rejected the suggestion that the Constitution obliges governors to act solely on the advice of the state cabinet when granting assent. However, it drew a clear line: if a governor decides to withhold assent, the bill ”must” be returned to the legislature rather than left in limbo.
Chief Justice Gavai, reading the operative part of the verdict, said mandatory timelines for clearance “cannot be judicially prescribed.” The idea of *deemed assent*, the court warned, risks undermining the separation of powers.
Instead, the court held that governors must act within a “reasonable period”, subject to judicial scrutiny , even though the governors themselves cannot be personally liable for their decisions.
“The role of the President in protecting the Constitution as a cohesive unit is crucial,” the bench noted. “The President would be unable to exercise this option unless the governor reserves the bill for her assent. It is unfathomable to hold that the governor is not empowered with discretion under Article 200.”
The case stems from President Murmu’s decision on 13 May to refer 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court, challenging an earlier ruling of 8 April in which a two-judge bench had mandated specific deadlines for both governors and the President when handling state bills.
The April verdict had come amid mounting friction between states and governors , particularly in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka with several bills reportedly held up for months.
During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, conceded that governors cannot withhold assent indefinitely but insisted that the judiciary cannot impose “rigid timelines” on constitutional authorities. “Would one constitutional organ issue a mandamus to another constitutional organ?” Mehta asked, urging the court to declare the April ruling incorrect.
Several opposition-ruled states opposed the presidential reference altogether, arguing that fixed timelines were essential to prevent what they alleged was political misuse of the governor’s office.
Key constitutional questions
Among the 14 issues placed before the court, the most consequential included:
What options are available to a governor when presented with a bill under Article 200?
Is the governor bound by ministerial advice when exercising these options?
Can gubernatorial discretion under Article 200 be reviewed by courts?
Does Article 361 shield governors entirely from judicial scrutiny?
In the absence of legally defined deadlines, can courts impose them?
The Constitution bench resolved that while courts cannot prescribe fixed timelines, they retain the power to intervene where a governor’s inaction appears unreasonable or arbitrary.
The ruling comes at a time of deepening tensions between several state governments and their appointed governors. Opposition parties have frequently accused governors of using procedural delays to block or frustrate state legislation , an allegation governors and the central government reject.
By refusing to impose a strict schedule yet insisting bills cannot be stalled indefinitely, the Supreme Court has attempted a delicate balancing act: safeguarding federalism without undermining constitutional authority.
The judgment, reserved earlier on 11 September after ten days of hearings, was delivered by Chief Justice Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar.
Whether the ruling reduces the growing flashpoints between Raj Bhavan and state capitals, or merely shifts the battleground to what constitutes a “reasonable period” , remains to be seen.
