नवीनतम
SC observes Governors cannot delay assent to bills indefinitely
NEW DELHI [Maha Media]: In a significant development during the Presidential reference hearing, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, September 2, orally observed that Governors cannot indefinitely delay granting assent to Bills passed by state legislatures.
Three of the five judges on the Bench — Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice P.S. Narasimha — remarked that Governors must act within a reasonable timeframe and cannot obstruct the legislative process.
"Governors cannot delay the wisdom of the legislature endlessly," Justice Narasimha stated, adding, "No organ can impair the functioning of the Constitution."
The remarks came during a hearing stemming from a 14-point Presidential reference sent to the Supreme Court in May 2025. The reference seeks the Court’s opinion on constitutional provisions concerning the roles of Governors and the President in giving assent to Bills — particularly in light of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case.
The Tamil Nadu government, represented by senior advocates A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, argued that Governors "cannot assume to be royalty in a Republic" and must act in accordance with the constitutional mandate. The West Bengal government, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, echoed similar concerns.
"When the Constitution is clear that a Governor should act with immediacy, why should he hold back Bills? There is a sense of urgency associated with the Governor’s assent. Legislation is a sovereign act. It cannot wait," Sibal argued.
Sibal also criticized the Union government’s interpretation of Article 200, which he said effectively granted Governors unchecked discretion to withhold assent. He warned that such a stance would lead to "absurdity" and could derail democratic governance in the states.
"This Constitution has its genesis in history, but its alignment is with the future… And who decides the future of this country? You five in this case. The future of India is at stake if you give such absurd powers to the Governor," Sibal told the Bench.
While the Court agreed that indefinite delays are problematic, it expressed reservations about imposing a uniform time limit or allowing for "deemed assent" if a Governor fails to act within a certain period.
Justice Nath questioned the implications of setting a rigid time frame: “What happens if the time limit of three months set by the Supreme Court \[in the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment] is not followed by the President or Governors?”
CJI Gavai also noted that not all legislation follows the same timeline and cautioned against applying a “broad brushstroke” that could lead to judicial overreach.
The matter under consideration originates from controversy surrounding Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s move to reserve ten Bills for presidential assent, a move previously ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. That judgment prompted President Droupadi Murmu to seek the Court’s formal opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution.
