Can the Governor withhold assent to a Bill passed by the State legislature based on his own discretion? Why has the Centre said that courts cannot prescribe a timeline for Governors? What role does the President play? What have Opposition-ruled States argued?

The Story So Far

• The Supreme Court is hearing a May 2025 reference on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
• Triggered by Governors of Tamil Nadu and Kerala withholding assent to Bills passed by their legislatures.
• An April 2025 judgment held:
  • If the Governor withholds assent, he must state reasons within a reasonable time.
• Current reference: Can the Supreme Court fix timelines for Governors’ action on Bills?

What Does the Constitution Say?

Article 200 – Governor’s Role

Governor may:

1. Give assent to a Bill.
2. Withhold assent.
3. Return the Bill (except a Money Bill) for reconsideration.
4. Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.

• If a Bill is returned and re-passed, the Governor must assent.

Article 201 – President’s Role

• For Bills reserved by the Governor:
  • President may assent, withhold, or return the Bill.
  • If re-passed, the President must assent.

No timeline is prescribed in the Constitution for either the Governor or the President.

Recent Trends

• Growing instances of Governors withholding assent, sparking legal disputes.
• The Supreme Court has clarified:
  • Governors cannot indefinitely delay decisions.
  • Action must be taken within a reasonable time.
• Larger Bench reference seeks clarity on whether fixed timelines can be imposed.

Key Notes:

• Article 200: Governor acts on aid and advice of Council of Ministers, except when reserving Bills for the President.
• Governor cannot sit indefinitely on Bills.
• Opposition-ruled States: Delay violates cooperative federalism and undermines State legislatures.
• Centre’s stand:
  • Constitution does not mandate timelines.
  • Discretion of Governor/President must be respected.
  • Courts cannot prescribe timelines.

Constitutional Principles Involved

• Article 163(1): Governor to act on aid and advice of Council of Ministers (with some discretionary powers).
• Supreme Court precedents:
  • Governors must avoid indefinite delay.
  • Courts have suggested “reasonable time” but avoided strict deadlines.
• Federal balance: Popularly elected State legislatures vs discretionary powers of Governors.

Way Forward

1. 1. Supreme Court guidelines could ensure timely decisions without rigid deadlines.

• Balance required between:

1. • Governor’s discretionary role, and
   • Autonomy of State legislatures.
2. Strengthening federal spirit is essential to avoid recurring conflicts.
3. Possible solution: Define “reasonable time” in practice (e.g., 3–6 months) rather than absolute timelines.