Supreme Court Probes Governor's Power in Punjab Bill Dispute, Issues Notice to Union

New Delhi - The Supreme Court of India has once again stepped into the contentious constitutional arena governing the relationship between a State government and its Governor, issuing a notice to the Union Government in a writ petition filed by the State of Punjab. The petition challenges the Governor's decision to reserve two state-passed bills for the consideration of the President, an action the state deems unconstitutional, and the subsequent inaction on these bills.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran on July 29 took cognizance of the plea, which seeks a declaration of "deemed assent" for the stalled legislation. The case, STATE OF PUNJAB v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. | W.P.(C) No. 685/2025 , places the Union Government, the Principal Secretary to the Governor, and the Secretary to the Punjab Legislative Assembly as respondents, setting the stage for another significant judicial examination of gubernatorial powers.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the Punjab government, presented the case, which centers on the fate of two key legislative proposals: The Sikh Gurudwaras (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and The Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023. He acknowledged the case's intersection with a larger, pending matter before a Constitution Bench concerning the timelines for a Governor or President to assent to bills, suggesting the matter be listed for hearing in September, pending the larger bench's outcome.

---

The Core of the Constitutional Challenge

The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, mounts a two-pronged attack on the legislative impasse. Firstly, it questions the very basis of the Governor's authority to refer the bills to the President. The state argues that this referral was executed "in contravention to the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, and in the absence of any constitutional trigger or extraordinary breakdown of democratic governance." This argument strikes at the heart of the Governor's role, positing that they are bound by the advice of the elected government in most legislative matters and cannot act as a discretionary check or an agent of the Union Government.

Secondly, the petition challenges what it terms the "President's simpliciter inaction" on the reserved bills. Punjab's plea contends that since receiving the bills, the President has neither granted assent nor formally withheld it by providing reasons. This lack of a definitive decision, the state argues, is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and paralyzes the state's legislative function on matters of "prime public importance."

The specific reliefs sought from the Apex Court are threefold: 1. A declaration that the Governor's act of reserving the bills for Presidential consideration is unconstitutional, illegal, and arbitrary. 2. A declaration that the indefinite withholding of assent without reasons is similarly unconstitutional, illegal, and arbitrary. 3. A writ of mandamus to compel the processing of the bills forthwith, suggesting "deemed assent" as a necessary remedy for the constitutional inertia.

Building on Precedent: A Developing Jurisprudence

The Punjab government's petition is not being argued in a vacuum. It heavily relies on a burgeoning body of Supreme Court jurisprudence aimed at curbing gubernatorial delays in the legislative process.

The plea cites the landmark 2023 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Another . In that case, the Court held that a Governor must act on bills "forthwith," and if they choose to withhold assent or reserve a bill for the President, this must be done within a reasonable timeframe, suggested to be a "maximum period of 1 month." The Punjab government's case seeks to apply this principle not only to the Governor's initial action but also to the subsequent phase of Presidential consideration.

Furthermore, the petition references a previous direct confrontation between the same parties in The State Of Punjab v. Principal Secretary To The Governor Of Punjab And Anr. In that matter, the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that if a Governor decides to withhold assent, they are constitutionally obligated to return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration. The court had observed that a Governor cannot simply sit on a bill indefinitely, effectively creating a "pocket veto" that is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution for state bills.

The current petition extends this logic, arguing that reservation for the President cannot be used as an alternative method to indefinitely stall legislation that the Governor may be disinclined to approve or return.

Implications for Federalism and Governance

This case transcends the immediate political conflict in Punjab. It raises fundamental questions about the delicate balance of power in India's federal structure. The role of the Governor, envisioned by the framers of the Constitution as a dignified, non-partisan head of the state executive, has increasingly become a flashpoint for state-Centre friction.

Legal experts contend that repeated instances of Governors in opposition-ruled states delaying or reserving bills passed by duly elected legislatures undermine the principles of democratic governance and federalism. By referring bills to the President, especially those falling squarely within the State List of the Seventh Schedule, a Governor can effectively subject state legislation to the Union's political approval, a dynamic that subverts the constitutional division of powers.

The Supreme Court's eventual ruling will be critical. A decision in favor of Punjab could further solidify the principle that constitutional functionaries cannot exercise their powers in a manner that frustrates the legislative will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives. It could impose stricter, judicially enforceable timelines not just on Governors but also on the President when considering state legislation. Conversely, a decision upholding the Governor's broad discretion in reserving bills could be seen as empowering the Centre with a significant lever of control over state law-making.

As the matter awaits further hearing, it will be closely watched by legal and political observers nationwide. The outcome, intertwined with the forthcoming decision from the Constitution Bench on assent timelines, promises to be a defining moment in the ongoing judicial effort to clarify and reinforce the constitutional architecture of legislative authority in India.