The Supreme Court is examining whether Governors can indefinitely delay assent to State Bills, following controversies in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal. A Constitution Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai stressed that Governors “cannot behave like monarchs” or stall governance. The hearings stem from an April 2025 ruling granting a three-month window for assent, after which Bills gain “deemed assent.” The Centre sought clarity via a Presidential Reference under Article 143. With Articles 200–201 at stake, the Court’s decision will shape Centre-State relations and curb gubernatorial inaction.
The Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu ended the misuse of “pocket veto” by Governors. It held that Article 200 doesn’t allow indefinite inaction and set clear timelines—one month for assent and three months for reconsideration—strengthening State legislatures’ authority and federal balance. By invoking Article 142 to deem delayed Bills as assented, the Court prevented democratic paralysis. While some critics call this judicial overreach, the ruling reinforces accountability and aligns with global democratic practices. It ensures Governors act constitutionally, not politically, safeguarding federalism and legislative primacy.
