SC ruled that Governors have only "three options": grant assent, withhold assent, or return the Bill to the legislature.
Published Nov 20, 2025 | 11:34 AM ⚊ Updated Nov 20, 2025 | 12:33 PM
The court has held that the Governor must act in almost all matters on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and cannot be a rival power center.
Synopsis: Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to State Bills, rejecting a “fourth option” under Article 200. Only three choices exist: assent, withhold with reasons, or return for reconsideration. If re-passed, assent is mandatory. Indefinite delays violate cooperative federalism. Advisory opinion on President’s Reference curbs gubernatorial obstruction, reinforcing state legislative primacy.
In a shot in the arm for India’s federal structure, the Supreme Court today ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by State Legislative Assemblies, and batted for a consultative rather than obstructive approach to legislative processes.
Delivering its opinion on a Presidential Reference, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai clarified the contours of gubernatorial powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, rejecting claims of unfettered discretion and stressing on the principles of cooperative federalism.
The verdict, pronounced amid heightened political tensions between state governments and Raj Bhavans, addresses 14 constitutional questions posed by President Droupadi Murmu on 13 May, 2025.
These queries stemmed from ongoing disputes, including high-profile standoffs in states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where Governors had delayed or reserved Bills for presidential consideration, prompting accusations of partisan interference.
The reference sought the Court’s view on whether judicially imposed timelines on Governors and the President for assenting to Bills – as laid down in an 8 April, 2025, ruling in “State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu“ – were constitutionally valid.
The Bench ruled that Governors have only “three options”: grant assent, withhold assent, or return the Bill to the legislature with specific reasons for reconsideration. There is no “fourth option,” as argued by the Centre during hearings – such as indefinitely reserving the Bill without decision or action – that would allow pocket vetoes or endless pendency.
“Governors cannot return Bills without giving reasons,” CJI observed, highlighting that any withholding must be reasoned and not without cause.
The Court stressed that if a Bill is re-passed by the legislature after being returned, the Governor is bound to give assent, preventing cycles of obstruction. This aligns with earlier observations during hearings, where the Bench noted that unexplained delays paralyse democratic governance and undermine state legislatures’ competence.
CJI elaborated on the federal ethos embedded in Article 200, describing its first provision as one that “initiates a conversation between the Governor and the State legislature.”
While the opinion stopped short of endorsing rigid judicial timelines – deeming them “antithetical to the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers” – it reinforced the April 2025 judgment’s three-month window for Governors to act on re-enacted Bills and a similar period for presidential assent under Article 201.
SC clarified that it would not impose “deemed assent” mechanisms, as these could encroach on executive prerogatives. However, it left no room for complacency: Governors “cannot sit on Bills for years,” and the Court vowed it “will not sit idle” if constitutional authorities fail their duties, potentially leading to legislative paralysis.
Detailed arguments on the 14 questions were presented by all sides, with the Centre defending a broader interpretive scope for gubernatorial powers, while opposition counsel advocated for stricter limits to protect state autonomy.
The Bench’s deliberations, spanning several days in September and October, dissected the balance between Union oversight and state legislative primacy, ultimately prioritising cooperative federalism.
(With inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
