Supreme Court on Governor Powers

Source: The post “Supreme Court on Governor Powers” has been created, based on “Supreme Court on Governor Powers” published in “Indian Express” on 21st November 2025.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper 2- Polity

Context: In a landmark Constitution Bench judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the scope and limits of the Governor’s powers under Articles 200 and 163, along with related constitutional provisions such as Articles 201, 142, 145(3), and 361. The reference arose due to increasing concerns over delays by Governors in granting assent to Bills passed by state legislatures. The Court addressed fourteen constitutional questions and provided definitive interpretations that govern legislative–executive relations in the federal structure.

Governor’s Options Under Article 200

1. The Supreme Court held that the Governor has only three constitutionally permissible options under Article 200.
2. These include granting assent to the Bill, withholding assent and returning the Bill to the Legislature with recommendations (if the Bill is not a Money Bill), and reserving the Bill for the consideration of the President.
3. The Court clarified that there is no fourth option that allows the Governor to “withhold assent simpliciter” by merely keeping the Bill pending indefinitely.
4. If the Governor decides to withhold assent, then the Bill must be returned to the House.

Whether the Governor is Bound by the Aid and Advice of the Council of Ministers

1. The Court held that, under Article 163, the Governor is required to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in matters where the Constitution expressly provides for discretion.
2. The Court further held that granting or withholding assent under Article 200 is an area where the Governor has discretion and is therefore not bound by the Cabinet’s advice.
3. The reasoning of the Court was that if the Governor were bound by ministerial advice, then the Governor would never be able to return a Bill for reconsideration because no government would advise against its own legislation.

Justiciability of the Governor’s Constitutional Discretion

1. The Court held that the substantive decision of the Governor, or the reasons behind choosing a particular course of action under Article 200, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
2. However, the Court clarified that prolonged, unexplained, or indefinite inaction on the part of the Governor is subject to judicial scrutiny.
3. Therefore, if a Governor keeps a Bill pending without making any decision, the Court may direct the Governor to act, although it cannot direct what decision must be made.

Article 361 and Judicial Review

1. The Court explained that Article 361 grants personal immunity to the Governor and the President for acts done in the exercise of their official duties.
2. However, this immunity applies only to the individual and not to the “office” of the Governor.
3. Consequently, the Court held that the actions or inactions of the Governor’s office that cause constitutional delays can still be examined by the judiciary even though the individual holding the office cannot be personally questioned.

Timelines for Governors

1. The Court overruled its earlier April 2025 judgment that prescribed strict timelines of one to three months for the Governors to act on Bills.
2. The Court reasoned that Article 200 uses the expression “as soon as possible,” which prevents courts from imposing rigid or fixed timeframes.
3. The judiciary, therefore, cannot mandate specific deadlines, although it can intervene to prevent unreasonable delays.

President’s Discretion Under Article 201

1. The Court held that the President’s discretion under Article 201 is similar to the Governor’s powers under Article 200.
2. The President’s decision to either assent to or withhold assent from a reserved Bill is not open to judicial review on its merits.
3. The Court also clarified that the President cannot be compelled through judicial directions to act within fixed timelines when dealing with state Bills reserved for consideration.

Requirement of Supreme Court’s Advice Under Article 143

1. The Court clarified that Article 143 gives the President the option, but not the obligation, to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law.
2. The President is not required to seek this advice every time a Governor reserves a Bill. The President’s subjective satisfaction is considered sufficient for the purpose of acting on reserved Bills.
3. The Court held that judicial review applies only to enacted laws and not to Bills, which represent proposed legislation.
4. Therefore, courts cannot adjudicate the validity, content, or constitutionality of a Bill before it receives assent and becomes a law.

Whether Article 142 Can Substitute the Governor’s or President’s Role

1. The Court held that Article 142 does not empower the Supreme Court to substitute the constitutional roles of the Governor or the President.
2. The Court rejected the concept of “deemed assent,” which earlier judgments had proposed as a remedy for delays.
3. It clarified that Article 142 cannot be used to override substantive constitutional provisions, such as those that require the Governor’s or President’s assent before a Bill becomes law.
4. The Court held unequivocally that a Bill cannot become law without the assent of the Governor, or of the President in cases where the Bill is reserved. Until such assent is granted, the Bill has no legal force and remains only a proposed piece of legislation.
5. Scope of Supreme Court’s Powers Under Article 142: The Court held that the question regarding the extent of the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 was too broad to be answered definitively.
6. However, it reiterated its position that Article 142 cannot be used to contradict or override substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution, such as the mandatory requirement for constitutional assent.

Reference to Five-Judge Bench Under Article 145(3)

1. The Court declined to answer the question regarding whether certain matters must compulsorily be referred to a Constitution Bench of at least five judges under Article 145(3).
2. It held that the question was irrelevant to the specific issues concerning the Governor’s powers on legislative assent.

Bar Under Article 131

1. The Court declined to answer the question on whether Article 131 bars any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court concerning disputes between the Union and the States.
2. It noted that Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on such disputes but held that this issue was irrelevant to the reference concerning the Governor’s powers.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s judgment establishes a clear and balanced constitutional framework governing the roles of Governors, state legislatures, and the Union executive. It preserves necessary constitutional discretion while ensuring accountability by preventing indefinite delays. The verdict strengthens cooperative federalism by clarifying constitutional boundaries and by safeguarding the legislative process from executive inaction.

Question: What were the major issues clarified by the Supreme Court regarding the Governor’s powers to grant assent to Bills under Article 200?