New Delhi, September 4, 2025: The Supreme Court has stated that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold or delay assent to Bills passed by State legislatures, marking a significant development in the ongoing tussle between Raj Bhavans and elected governments. The observation came as a Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, continued hearing a Presidential Reference on whether Governors and the President have the authority to keep Bills pending without end.
Why is this in the news?
The clarification follows mounting controversies in states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, where Governors have repeatedly withheld assent or delayed action on Bills passed by State Assemblies. In fact, the debate escalated after the Supreme Court, in an earlier judgment on April 8, 2025, fixed a three-month window for Governors and the President to decide on pending Bills, failing which such Bills would be considered to have received “deemed assent.”
The Centre subsequently sought constitutional clarity on whether such deemed assent was valid, prompting the Presidential Reference under Article 143.
Key Bench Observations
The five-judge Bench, comprising CJI Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and two others, made sharp observations during the hearing:
- Governors cannot behave like monarchs in a Republic; they are bound to respond to Bills without delay.
- Sitting indefinitely over Bills strikes at the core of constitutional functioning, creating unnecessary governance paralysis.
- The Court hinted at the need for discipline, if not a rigid timeline, while cautioning against overstepping into legislative territory.
Justice Narasimha underlined that “no institution has the right to obstruct the effective working of the Constitution,” while Justice Nath raised a pointed query: should ‘deemed assent’ be the only remedy? Could alternatives such as ‘deemed withholding’ or automatic reference to the President also be explored?
States’ Arguments
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that Bills represent the “felt necessity of the times” and cannot be held hostage by gubernatorial inaction. “The Governor is not a postman,” added advocate P. Wilson, “but neither can he simply sit back and do nothing.”
West Bengal’s counsel, Kapil Sibal, echoed similar concerns, stressing that governance must be “collaborative, not combative.” He contended that indefinite delays erode democracy and diminish the sovereign authority of elected legislatures.
On the other hand, Kerala’s Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, through a separate plea, sought exclusion of the Chief Minister from the process of appointing university Vice-Chancellors—further widening the federal tussle.
Recent Verbal Exchanges in Court
During the hearings, several significant verbal exchanges occurred:
CJI Gavai questioned whether the Governor could act as a mere “postman“ while Justice Kant observed that the Governor “cannot act as a mere postman or as a ‘super legislature“.
Kapil Sibal told the bench: “A house cannot run if there is a marital discord. This is also true for the democratic institutions, where there must be harmony between legislature, executive and constitutional heads“.
When questioned about legislative competence, Sibal argued: “A legislation can be challenged in a court of law by citizens or by somebody else. It’s in the rarest and rare case that a governor says ‘I cannot give assent to the bills’ and withhold it”
Constitutional Provisions Under Debate
At the heart of the hearings lie Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
- Article 200 allows a Governor to assent, withhold, return, or reserve a Bill for the President.
- Article 201 enables the President, once consulted, to either approve or withhold consent.
- Articles 154 and 163 further underline that while Executive power vests in the Governor, it must be exercised in accordance with ministerial advice, barring specific exceptions.
Past rulings, from Shamsher Singh (1974) to Nabam Rebia (2016), have consistently reinforced that Governors cannot act as independent power centres against the advice of elected governments.
The Issues at Stake
The Supreme Court now faces a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, unchecked gubernatorial delays have been weaponised in the Centre-State political battleground, creating legislative deadlocks. On the other, prescribing a rigid judicial timeline risks being labelled as judicial overreach, encroaching on executive and legislative turf.
The matter also carries strong federal undertones, as Governors—appointed by the Centre—are increasingly seen as friction points in states ruled by opposition parties.
Looking Ahead
Legal experts believe that clarity is urgent. Possible solutions could include codifying a fixed time limit, through parliamentary law or constitutional amendment, Judicial safeguards that allow courts to step in against malicious delays, promoting cooperative federalism, ensuring that Governors and state governments work in tandem rather than at cross-purposes.
As the hearings progress, the Supreme Court’s eventual advisory opinion will likely shape Centre-State relations for years to come. Whether the solution lies in deemed assent, constitutional amendment, or a political understanding, one thing is clear: in India’s democratic scheme, delay cannot be a Governor’s weapon of choice.
