Governor Has Discretion on Bills, Court Can't Set Timelines or Deem Assent: Supreme Court's Landmark Opinion

New Delhi – In a landmark opinion with profound implications for India's federal structure, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has authoritatively clarified the powers of State Governors under Article 200 of the Constitution. The Court held that a Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when deciding on a Bill passed by the legislature and can exercise personal discretion.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar, was responding to a Presidential Reference (Special Reference No. 1 of 2025) filed under Article 143(1). The reference sought to resolve conflicting judicial interpretations and growing friction between State governments and Governors over the assent to Bills.

The Court decisively ruled that the actions of the Governor and the President in granting or withholding assent are not justiciable, and that courts cannot impose timelines or declare a "deemed assent" for Bills pending with them.

Background of the Reference

The Presidential Reference was necessitated by a state of "doubt or confusion" following a 2025 judgment by a two-judge bench in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu . That ruling had held the Governor's actions to be justiciable, prescribed timelines, and appeared to conflict with several precedents set by larger benches. The reference raised 14 questions concerning the constitutional options available to the Governor, the role of ministerial advice, justiciability, and judicial powers under Article 142.

Arguments Presented

The Union government, represented by the Solicitor General, argued that the Governor possesses four distinct options under Article 200: assent, withhold assent, reserve for the President, or return for reconsideration. They contended that these were discretionary powers essential for maintaining constitutional balance.

Conversely, several State governments, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, argued that the Governor is a formal head who must act on the aid and advice of the elected government. They submitted that withholding assent is not an absolute veto but is linked to returning the Bill for reconsideration, and any other interpretation would undermine the legislative will of the people. They also opposed the maintainability of the reference, calling it an "appeal in disguise" against the State of Tamil Nadu judgment.

Key Rulings by the Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court, after dismissing the preliminary objections on maintainability, delivered a comprehensive opinion clarifying the constitutional scheme.

1. Governor's Three Constitutional Options

The Court interpreted Article 200 to provide the Governor with three options, not four. It held that the power to "withhold assent" is not a standalone veto. Instead, it is qualified by the first proviso, meaning the Governor must return the Bill (if not a Money Bill) to the legislature with a message for reconsideration.

> "The first proviso in our considered opinion qualifies the verb 'withholds' in the substantive part and obliges the Governor to 'return' the Bill in accordance with the first proviso, except, in case of a Money Bill."

The three options are:

1. Grant Assent.

2. Reserve the Bill for the President's consideration.

3. Withhold Assent and Return the Bill to the legislature for reconsideration.

2. Discretionary Power Affirmed

Overturning the reasoning in the State of Tamil Nadu case, the Court held that the Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising these options. This discretion is a crucial element of the constitutional checks and balances.

> "We are of the firm view, that the Governor must be given this constitutional option, i.e., to exercise his discretion under Article 200... It is unlikely that the Council of Ministers... will advise the Governor, to return a Bill to the Legislature, or refer it to the President."

The Court emphasized that this discretion enables the Governor to protect the Constitution, especially in cases where a Bill might be unconstitutional, encroach on the powers of the High Court, or affect federal relations, necessitating Presidential review.

3. No Judicial Timelines or 'Deemed Assent'

The bench firmly rejected the notion that courts can prescribe timelines for the Governor or the President to act on Bills. It noted that the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted such timelines, providing "elasticity" for constitutional authorities.

> "The imposition of timelines would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution so carefully preserves."

Consequently, the concept of "deemed assent"—where a Bill is considered passed after a certain period—was held to be "alien to the constitutional scheme." The Court stated that using its powers under Article 142 to declare a deemed assent would amount to a judicial takeover of an executive function and violate the separation of powers.

4. Actions Not Justiciable, but Inaction is Reviewable

The Court reaffirmed the long-standing principle, citing precedents like Hoechst Pharmaceuticals , that the Governor's or President's decision on a Bill is not justiciable . Courts cannot conduct a merit-based review to determine if the decision to assent, reserve, or return a Bill was correct.

> "It is impermissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law."

However, the Court carved out a crucial exception for prolonged and unexplained inaction . While the merits of the decision are immune from review, a Governor cannot indefinitely sit on a Bill. In such cases, a court can issue a limited writ of mandamus directing the Governor to take a decision within a reasonable time, without specifying which decision to take. This limited judicial review serves as a tool for ensuring institutional accountability.

Final Decision and Implications

The Supreme Court's opinion settles a contentious constitutional debate, clearly delineating the powers and immunities of the Governor. By affirming the Governor's discretion while simultaneously holding that indefinite inaction is unacceptable, the judgment seeks to balance the principles of federalism, legislative sovereignty, and constitutional checks. This ruling will serve as the definitive guide for the functioning of Governors and is expected to reduce friction between Raj Bhavans and elected State governments.