The Governor’s Role and Legislative Power
The Constitutional Position of the Governor: A Federal Paradox
The Indian Constitution is often described as “quasi-federal,” blending the features of a federal system (power division between the center and states) with a unitary bias. Within this unique framework, the Governor is a central yet contentious figure. Appointed by the President on the advice of the Union Cabinet, the Governor serves as the ceremonial head of the state.
While vested with formal executive powers (Article 154), the Governor’s real authority is governed by Article 163, which mandates them to act on the “aid and advice” of the state’s Council of Ministers. The Supreme Court, in the landmark judgments like Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), held that the Governor is not an agent of the central government but a constitutional head who must facilitate the functioning of the elected state government. Discretionary powers are the exception, not the rule.
The Governor’s legislative role is particularly crucial and often leads to conflict. When a bill is passed by the state legislature, it must be presented to the Governor for assent under Article 200. This is the final and often most critical step in a bill’s journey to becoming a law. The Governor’s options under this article are:
- Assent: Granting approval, making the bill a law.
- Withholding Assent: Refusing to approve, effectively killing the bill.
- Returning the Bill: Sending a non-money bill back to the legislature for reconsideration.
- Reserving the Bill: Holding it for the consideration of the President.
This framework, while seemingly clear, contains ambiguities. What if the Governor simply does nothing? Can they indefinitely delay a bill, a practice often termed a “pocket veto”? And what happens when a bill is re-passed by the legislature? It was these very questions that came to a head in the recent legal battle.
The Factual Dispute and Key Arguments
The legal dispute was triggered by a lengthy conflict between the Tamil Nadu government and the former Governor, Dr. R.N. Ravi. Between 2020 and 2023, the state assembly passed a dozen bills, but the Governor failed to act on them for an extended period. This inaction led the state government to file a writ petition under Article 32, arguing that the delay was a violation of constitutional principles.
In a last-minute response to the legal challenge, the Governor returned ten bills and reserved two for the President. The state assembly promptly re-passed all ten bills without amendments. However, instead of granting assent as the Constitution seemingly mandates after a re-passage, the Governor took an unprecedented step: he reserved the ten re-passed bills for the President’s consideration.
The Tamil Nadu government’s core argument was that this action constituted an unconstitutional exercise of power. They argued that after a bill is re-passed, the Governor is legally and morally bound to grant assent, and no subsequent reservation is permissible. They further argued that the Constitution does not permit an indefinite delay or a “pocket veto,” and that the Governor, being an unelected appointee, must respect the democratic will of the legislature.
Conversely, the Governor’s office argued that the bills might conflict with central laws, justifying reservation under Article 254. They also pointed out the absence of a specific timeline in Article 200, claiming that their actions were within the bounds of gubernatorial discretion.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Court examined:
- Whether the Governor can indefinitely withhold assent to Bills.
- Whether a Bill can be reserved after being re-passed by the legislature.
- Whether “pocket veto” or indefinite delay is permissible.
- Whether the Governor’s actions under Article 200 are open to judicial review.
- The time frame for gubernatorial and presidential decisions.
The Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a verdict that significantly redefined the Governor’s role in the legislative process. The Court’s judgment established several critical principles:
- Rejection of Indefinite Inaction: The Court unequivocally declared that the practice of indefinitely withholding assent or delaying a bill, often referred to as a “pocket veto,” is unconstitutional and antithetical to a constitutional democracy. The phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 was interpreted to mean without undue delay, imposing a clear duty to act.
- Imposition of Strict Timelines: To prevent future misuse, the Court introduced specific, binding deadlines for gubernatorial action:
- Within one month: The Governor must grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve a bill at the first instance.
- Within three months: The Governor must communicate a decision to withhold assent or reserve the bill, providing a written justification.
- Within one month after re-passage: Once a bill is re-passed by the assembly, the Governor is legally obligated to grant assent.
- No Second Reservation: The Court held that a Governor cannot reserve a bill for the President’s consideration after it has been returned to and re-passed by the legislature. They can only use the power to return or reserve a bill once..
- Binding Nature of Cabinet Advice: The judgment reaffirmed that the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the state Council of Ministers, except in extremely limited, constitutionally defined areas of discretion. The Court emphasized that the Governor cannot use the power of reservation as a political tool to bypass the elected government.
- Judicial Review: The Court ruled that a Governor’s actions or inaction under Article 200 are subject to judicial review. This is a crucial check on the power of the Governor, ensuring accountability and preventing arbitrary decisions.
- Use of Plenary Powers: In an exceptional move, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 to deliver complete justice. It declared the 10 re-passed bills to have been “deemed assented” by the Governor. This decisive action prevented further obstruction and restored legislative intent, signalling the judiciary’s resolve to uphold constitutional governance.
The Court also addressed the President’s role under Article 201, stating that even the President must act on a reserved bill within a reasonable time frame, specifically holding that a three-month period is appropriate to prevent indefinite delay.
Final Orders
- The Governor’s actions were declared illegal and unconstitutional.
- The 10 Bills were deemed to have received assent.
- Any pending Presidential action on these Bills stood invalid.
- The judgment reasserted federal balance, democratic accountability, and constitutional morality.
Conclusion
This verdict marks a landmark development in Centre–State relations. By setting strict timelines and prohibiting indefinite gubernatorial inaction, the Court has reinforced the principle that Governors cannot function as parallel political authorities. Instead, they remain constitutional heads, obligated to respect the democratic mandate of elected State governments.
The judgment thus strengthens the federal spirit of the Constitution, prevents misuse of gubernatorial discretion, and upholds the principle that constitutional offices exist to facilitate democracy, not to obstruct it.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India