Governors Cannot Stall Bills Indefinitely, Says SC

Why in the News? 

In May 2025, the Supreme Court began examining a Presidential Reference to decide if Governors and the President have the authority to indefinitely withhold assent to State Bills.

• This follows controversies in states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, where Governors have withheld assent or delayed action on Bills passed by State legislatures.
• The issue arose after the Supreme Court, on April 8, 2025, directed that Governors and the President must take a decision on pending Bills within three months. If no action is taken within this period, the Bills would be treated as having received ‘deemed assent.’

Key Points: Supreme Court Bench

Supreme Court Bench Observations:

• Chief Justice B.R. Gavai headed the Constitution Bench, accompanied by four additional judges.
• Other judges: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and two others.

Oral observations:

• Governors cannot sit endlessly over Bills.
• Such delays impede the functioning of the Constitution.
• In a Republic, governors are not monarchs and are expected to respond without delay.

Arguments Presented:

Tamil Nadu’s Stand (Advocates A.M. Singhvi & P. Wilson):

• Bills represent the “felt necessity of the times” and cannot be kept pending indefinitely.

West Bengal’s Stand (Kapil Sibal):

• Governance should be collaborative, not combative.
• Delaying Bills undermines democracy and the sovereign power of legislatures.
• Article 200 does not grant Governors unlimited power to keep Bills pending without decision.

“The Governor is not a postman, but he also cannot just sit back and do nothing.”

Kerala Governor’s Plea:

• Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar moved the SC seeking to exclude the Chief Minister from the process of selecting Vice-Chancellors in state universities.

Supreme Court Opinions (During Hearing):

Constitutional Provisions :

Issues Involved:

Delay in Assent:

• Governors deliberately delay assent, creating a legislative deadlock.
• Seen as political misuse of constitutional position.

Judicial Overreach Concern:

• The issue is whether courts have the authority to set binding deadlines for actions by Governors and the President.
• Discussion on the division of authority among the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

Federal Tensions:

• Increasing conflict between State governments and the Governor’s office.
• Issues of Centre-State relations and autonomy of states.

Related Case Law:

Way Forward:

• Clear Timeline: Parliament or SC may need to define a reasonable time limit for Governors to act.
• Codify Process: Amend the Constitution or enact a law clarifying the Governor’s role.
• Promote Cooperative Federalism: Encourage collaboration between Governors and State governments.
• Judicial Safeguards: Courts can step in where there is clear evidence of malafide delay or political bias.