Governors can’t sit over Bills endlessly: SC Observations

Context

• A Presidential Reference (May 2025) is being heard by a 5-judge Bench of the SC regarding time limits for Governors/President in granting assent to State Bills.

• Trigger: Tamil Nadu Governor case (2020–2024) → delayed assent to 10 Bills.

  • SC (April 2024, 2-judge Bench) imposed a 3-month limit → beyond which Bills deemed assented.

• Current hearing questions:

  • Can judiciary impose general timelines?

  • Can assent be “deemed” after deadline?

  • What about other options under Article 200?

Constitutional Background

Article 200 – Governor’s powers over State Bills

• Options available to Governor:

  1. Assent to the Bill.

  2. Withhold assent.

  3. Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill) for reconsideration.

  4. Reserve Bill for President’s consideration.

• Constitution is silent on time limits for decision.

Article 201 – Bills reserved for President

• President may assent / withhold assent.

• Again, no timeline prescribed.

Key Supreme Court Observations (Sept 2025)

• CJI B.R. Gavai, Justices Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha:

  • Governors cannot indefinitely delay Bills.

  • “No organ can impair the functioning of the Constitution.”

• Justice Narasimha: Time limits may be prescribed in individual cases based on facts, not via blanket rule.

• Justice Nath: If “deemed assent” is possible, why not also “deemed withholding” or “deemed reference to President”?

• CJI Gavai: General timelines for all cases may amount to judicial overreach.

Arguments from States

• Tamil Nadu (A.M. Singhvi, P. Wilson):

  • Governors “cannot assume to be royalty in a Republic.”

  • Bills are sovereign acts; must be decided with urgency.

• West Bengal (Kapil Sibal):

  • Absurdity if Governors have absolute power to withhold.

  • High offices must work collaboratively, not combatively.

  • Delay = thwarting constitutional scheme.

  • “Governor is not a postman; he can consult experts, but cannot sit back indefinitely.”

Issues Raised

1. Absence of Time Limits → scope for indefinite delay.

2. Judicial Overreach Concern → Can SC impose timelines in absence of constitutional provision?

3. Federal Tensions → Frequent stand-offs between States and Governors (esp. opposition-ruled States).

4. Accountability of Governors → unelected office, appointed by Centre, delaying elected State legislature’s will.

5. Constitutional Scheme → Article 200 was designed for limited discretion, not indefinite obstruction.

Significance of the Case

• Addresses balance of power between elected legislatures & nominated Governors.

• Tests judicial boundaries in filling constitutional gaps.

• Has implications for federalism & cooperative governance.

• Reinforces idea that Governor’s office is not ornamental but bound by constitutional responsibility.

Way Forward

• Legislative clarity: Parliament may amend to introduce timelines (as suggested by SC in other contexts, e.g., mercy petitions).

• Judicial safeguards: SC may mandate case-specific timelines to prevent misuse.

• Cooperative federalism: Governors should act as constitutional heads, not political veto points.

• Codified conventions: Like in UK, conventions may evolve → Governor must act within “reasonable time”.

Related Posts

Major Straits of the World – Part 3

Posted on November 26, 2022

Rising Obesity in India

Posted on March 5, 2025

PIB Analysis 13-10-22

Posted on October 13, 2022