GOVERNOR'S ASSENT TO STATE BILLS

 

Governor’s Assent to State Bills: Constitutional Duty or Discretion? 

By:

Salil Kumar P

Roll No. K/136/1999

Advocate, Kozhikode-673001

Mob: 8075113965

advocatesalil@gmail.com

The Constitution of India empowers State Legislatures to make laws and mandates Governors to act as a link between the Legislature and the Union. However, the practice of Governors indefinitely withholding assent to bills passed by State Legislatures has led to constitutional friction. Recently, the Supreme Court of India, in an oral observation, indicated that Governors must decide on bills within a "reasonable time"—suggesting a 3-month limit. This article examines the constitutional provisions, landmark judgments, and legal debates surrounding this issue, especially in light of the Presidential reference recently sent to the Supreme Court under Article 143.

The Indian Constitution envisions a federal structure with a clear demarcation of powers between the Union and the States. The Governor, though appointed by the President, acts as a constitutional head of a State and is expected to function in accordance with the aid and advice of the State's Council of Ministers. However, in recent years, the Governors of several States have been accused of sitting on bills for extended periods, effectively stalling legislation. This raises a significant constitutional question: Can the Governor indefinitely withhold assent to a bill passed by a duly elected State Legislature?

The power of the Governor with respect to bills passed by the State Legislature is governed primarily by Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution.

Article 200:

"When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State... it shall be presented to the Governor who shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President..."

Thus, the Governor has three options:

Assent to the Bill, making it law.

Withhold Assent, effectively rejecting the bill.

Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.

The fourth, implied option is:

4. Return the Bill (if it is not a money bill), for reconsideration by the Legislature under the first proviso to Article 200.

Article 201:

If a Bill is reserved for the President’s consideration, the President can either give or withhold assent, but no time limit is prescribed.

However, neither Article 200 nor Article 201 provides any specific time frame within which the Governor must act on a Bill. This legal vacuum has allowed Governors to delay bills indefinitely, sometimes for over a year, which many legal scholars and constitutional experts view as subversive to the legislative process.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831

The Supreme Court held that:

“The Governor is a constitutional head and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.”

This means that withholding assent or delaying it indefinitely without cogent reasons violates the principles of constitutional democracy.

2. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) 8 SCC 1

A Constitution Bench reaffirmed that:

“The Governor cannot act in his discretion, except in matters where the Constitution expressly permits such discretion.”

In this case, the Court held that the Governor’s discretion is limited, and he cannot override the will of the elected government. It also emphasized that the Governor's power under Article 200 is not absolute.

3. Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala (1962 AIR 694)

The Court interpreted the power of assent as part of the legislative process. Though it did not prescribe a time frame, it acknowledged that the assent stage is not a mere formality but must be exercised constitutionally.

Recent Developments and the Supreme Court's Oral Observations :

In 2023-24, multiple states including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Telangana approached the Supreme Court alleging inaction by Governors on bills passed by their legislatures. The Supreme Court observed that:

“The Governor cannot sit over bills indefinitely. The Constitution does not permit such inertia.”

While no final order was passed prescribing a specific deadline, a 3-month period was orally suggested as a "reasonable time" for the Governor to act.

This has led to national debate, with some arguing that such an interpretation amounts to judicial legislation, since the Constitution does not specify any time frame.

Presidential Reference under Article 143

In July 2025, the President of India referred the issue to the Supreme Court under Article 143—the advisory jurisdiction of the Court—seeking clarity on:

Whether the Governor can delay or withhold assent to a Bill indefinitely?

Whether the Supreme Court can prescribe a time limit (such as 3 months) for granting or withholding assent?

This reference is significant as it seeks an authoritative constitutional interpretation that would be binding and remove existing ambiguities.

Comparative Constitutional Insight

Other Westminster-style democracies offer guidance:

In the UK, Royal Assent is always granted; it is a ceremonial formality.

In Australia and Canada, Governors-General rarely, if ever, withhold assent, and such actions would be considered politically unacceptable.

This underscores the Indian Governor’s role as primarily ceremonial in legislative matters, reinforcing the need for timely action.

Conclusion: Need for Constitutional Discipline and Accountability

While the Constitution provides the Governor with certain formal powers, these are to be exercised constitutionally, not arbitrarily. The practice of indefinitely delaying bills subverts democratic governance and undermines the mandate of elected legislatures.

A constitutionally mandated time frame—either by way of judicial interpretation or constitutional amendment—appears necessary to prevent misuse of Article 200. Until then, constitutional morality and judicial vigilance must ensure Governors act as neutral constitutional heads, not as agents of political interference.

Suggested Reform:

Parliament may consider amending Article 200 to incorporate a fixed time limit (e.g., 3 months) for the Governor to act.

Alternatively, the Supreme Court may, through its advisory opinion in the Presidential reference, lay down binding guidelines under Article 143.

References:

Constitution of India, Articles 200 and 201.

Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831.

Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) 8 SCC 1.

Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala AIR 1962 SC 694.

Presidential Reference under Article 143 (2025) – Pending.