The Supreme Court of India has issued a landmark ruling setting clear timelines for Governors to act on state Bills under Article 200, aiming to curb delays and uphold constitutional accountability.
NEW DELHI: In a significant and far-reaching ruling, the Supreme Court of India has laid down specific timelines within which Governors must act on Bills passed by state legislatures and presented for assent under Article 200 of the Constitution.
This decision comes in response to increasing concerns about undue delays and perceived misuse of gubernatorial powers, which have at times disrupted the law-making process in several states. The ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, has been hailed as a step toward reinforcing federalism and ensuring accountability in constitutional governance.
The Issue: Delay and Inaction by Governors
Article 200 of the Constitution of India outlines the options available to a Governor when a Bill is presented for assent after being passed by the state legislature. These options include granting assent, withholding assent, returning the Bill (if it’s not a money Bill) with a message, or reserving it for the consideration of the President. However, the Constitution does not prescribe any specific timeframe within which the Governor must exercise these options.
This lacuna has, in recent times, led to instances where Governors have delayed action on Bills indefinitely, leading to legislative deadlocks and the stalling of governance. Critics have described such delays as the exercise of a “pocket veto”—a situation where inaction is used as a tool to block legislation. This has sparked political controversies, particularly in states where the ruling party is different from the party in power at the Centre.
Supreme Court’s Response: Timeline for Action
In its April 8, 2025 ruling, the Supreme Court acknowledged this gap in the constitutional framework and sought to address it by laying down judicially crafted timelines for Governors to act on Bills. The Court emphasized that while Article 200 does not mention a time limit, this silence cannot be interpreted as a license for indefinite inaction. It clarified that the Governor is constitutionally bound to act within a reasonable period to avoid paralyzing the legislative process.
The Court prescribed the following timelines:
- If the Governor withholds assent or reserves the Bill for the President’s consideration—in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers—such action must be taken forthwith, and no later than one month.
- If the Governor withholds assent contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, the Bill must be returned to the legislature with a message, within a maximum of three months.
- If the Governor reserves the Bill for the President’s consideration, again contrary to the advice of the Council, such reservation must be made within three months.
- If the legislature re-passes a Bill that was earlier returned by the Governor, assent must be granted within one month of its presentation.
These guidelines draw upon the recommendations made by the Sarkaria Commission (1988) and the Punchhi Commission (2007), both of which examined Centre-State relations in detail and proposed reforms to make the federal structure more effective and cooperative.
Why the Timelines Are Not a Constitutional Amendment
A significant concern raised was whether the judiciary, by imposing these timelines, was effectively amending the Constitution—something only the legislature is empowered to do. The Court firmly rejected this notion, offering a nuanced explanation of its reasoning.
According to the bench, prescribing timelines is not equivalent to inserting words into Article 200 or altering its essential features. Rather, it is an exercise in constitutional interpretation aimed at ensuring the smooth and effective functioning of the existing framework. The judges stressed that:
- The timelines do not change the procedure outlined in Article 200, but only provide clarity on the period within which action must be taken.
- They reinforce the constitutional objective of efficiency and expediency, preventing misuse or delay in the exercise of gubernatorial powers.
- They are not rigid deadlines, but general benchmarks that courts may use to evaluate whether inaction or delay by the Governor is justified.
Importantly, the Court refrained from introducing a concept of “deemed assent”—a feature present in other jurisdictions like Pakistan and the United States. In those countries, if the head of the executive fails to act within a specified period, the Bill is automatically deemed to have received assent. The Supreme Court made it clear that its judgment does not create such a mechanism in India.
Judicial Review and Flexibility
The judgment further explained that these timelines are not to be seen as absolute limits, but rather as tools to aid judicial review. If the Governor fails to act within the stipulated period, the courts will examine the reasons for the delay. If no reasonable justification is provided, such inaction could be struck down as arbitrary or unconstitutional.
This approach maintains a balance between flexibility and accountability. It allows Governors to explain genuine delays, such as those arising from legal complexities or procedural hurdles, but prevents them from indefinitely stalling legislation without sufficient cause.
The Court noted that it is well within its domain to lay down such timelines in the interest of constitutional governance. Similar timeframes have been judicially evolved in other areas of constitutional and administrative law to prevent abuse of discretionary powers.
Protecting the Federal Structure
At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision lies a concern for the health of Indian federalism. The Court observed that a Governor’s inaction on crucial legislation can disrupt governance, particularly in politically sensitive states. When an elected government is unable to implement its legislative agenda because of deliberate or unjustified delays by the Governor, it undermines the will of the people.
This problem is exacerbated when the state government and the central government are controlled by rival political parties. In such scenarios, the perception of bias or obstructionism by the Governor can damage public confidence in constitutional institutions.
The Court underscored that the Governor, as a constitutional functionary, must remain neutral, prompt, and accountable in discharging his duties. Any deviation from this standard poses a “serious threat to the federal polity” of the country.
The Supreme Court’s judgment is a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional values, particularly those relating to federalism, democratic accountability, and rule of law. By prescribing reasonable timelines for the Governor’s action under Article 200, the Court has not amended the Constitution but has filled a crucial gap to prevent misuse of discretionary powers.
It is a carefully crafted solution—one that acknowledges the need for flexibility while ensuring that such flexibility does not become a tool for indefinite delay. The judgment empowers state governments, safeguards the legislative process, and upholds the principle that constitutional functionaries cannot act (or fail to act) with impunity.
In doing so, the Supreme Court has once again played its role as the guardian of the Constitution, reinforcing the delicate balance between the different organs and levels of government. It sets a precedent that will guide future disputes involving the Governor’s role and reinforces the idea that constitutional silences must not become opportunities for constitutional subversion.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
