Supreme Court Review on Governor’s Role in Assent to State Bills

The Supreme Court is examining whether timelines can be fixed for Governors and the President in granting assent to State Bills. This debate is linked to Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of India is currently considering an important constitutional reference concerning the role of Governors in the legislative process of States.
The main question is whether Governors and the President should be mandated to take decisions within a fixed timeframe on Bills passed by State legislatures.
This issue has a deep impact on Centre–State relations and India’s federal structure, especially at a time when several States have alleged that Governors are deliberately delaying assent to Bills, thereby obstructing governance.

Role of Governors in Assent to Bills

Under Article 200 of the Constitution, when a Bill is passed by a State legislature, it is presented to the Governor. The Governor has the following options:

• Grant assent to the Bill.
• Withhold assent.
• Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
• Return the Bill (if it is not a Money Bill) with a message for reconsideration.

If the Bill is again passed by the legislature, the Governor is constitutionally bound to give assent.
However, the Constitution does not prescribe any time limit for the Governor’s decision, due to which Governors sometimes keep Bills pending indefinitely.
Similarly, Article 201 concerns the President’s assent when a Bill is reserved for consideration. Here too, no timeframe exists, leading to prolonged delays.

Debate on Fixing Timelines

The absence of clear timelines has become a major point of conflict in Centre–State relations.
Several States, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana, have alleged that Governors are withholding or delaying assent to Bills, thereby stalling key reforms.
The Supreme Court is considering whether judicially enforceable timelines can be set to prevent such delays.

Supporters argue that indefinite inaction by Governors goes against the spirit of parliamentary democracy and weakens the functioning of elected governments.
Critics, however, caution that imposing strict timelines could restrict the discretionary powers of Governors and the President, thereby disturbing the constitutional balance.

Background of the Case

The matter reached the Supreme Court as a Presidential Reference under Article 143, following disputes raised by multiple States.
The Union government has argued that Governors act within their constitutional role and that delays sometimes occur due to the need for consultation with the Centre or detailed scrutiny.

However, in earlier cases—Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) and Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)—the Supreme Court clarified that the Governor is generally bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in rare circumstances.
The present reference seeks to determine whether the inaction of Governors can be constitutionally limited through fixed timelines, ensuring accountability without weakening constitutional checks.

Implications for Federalism

• Strengthening legislative authority: Time-bound assent would reinforce the authority of elected State legislatures and reduce executive interference.
• Preventing political deadlocks: It would minimise conflicts between Governors and State governments, ensuring smoother legislative functioning.
• Judicial oversight on federal balance: This case represents an important judicial intervention to clarify constitutional ambiguities that affect Centre–State relations.

Setting a precedent: The ruling could influence debates on other constitutional offices where delays in decision-making affect governance.