The Supreme Court of India, in a significant order dated 10 November 2023, held that Governors cannot exercise their constitutional powers under Article 200 to indefinitely withhold assent to Bills duly passed by state legislatures. The Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, was hearing petitions filed by the governments of Punjab, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu challenging prolonged delays by their respective Governors in acting upon legislative Bills.
Background
The matter arose from multiple writ petitions filed by three state governments — Punjab, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu — alleging that their respective Governors had kept several Bills pending for unreasonable periods, effectively stalling the legislative process. The Punjab government highlighted that Bills passed by the state Assembly had been pending with the Governor for extended durations without any action being taken under Article 200 of the Constitution, which provides the Governor three options upon receiving a Bill: grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
The constitutional question engaged the core principles of parliamentary democracy and federalism. Article 200 envisions that the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in legislative matters, subject to specific constitutional exceptions. The prolonged inaction by Governors raised concerns about whether the constitutional office was being utilised to frustrate the will of elected state legislatures.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court made the following significant observations and directions:
No indefinite withholding power: The Court held that Article 200 does not confer upon the Governor a power to indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by the state legislature. The constitutional scheme contemplates timely action, and inaction cannot be treated as a constitutional prerogative.
Governor bound by constitutional duty: The Bench observed that the Governor must act within a reasonable timeframe upon receiving Bills presented for assent. The Governor cannot "virtually veto" legislation by simply not acting on it.
Three permissible courses of action: The Court reiterated that upon receiving a Bill, the Governor must either grant assent, withhold assent and return the Bill with a message to the legislature requesting reconsideration, or reserve the Bill for the President's consideration under Article 201. Perpetual inaction is not a constitutionally recognised fourth option.
Notice to Union of India: The Court issued notice to the Union Government through the Ministry of Home Affairs and requested the Attorney General and Solicitor General to assist in the matter, recognising the broader constitutional significance of the issue.
Implications for Practitioners
This order represents a substantial judicial clarification of the boundaries of gubernatorial authority in the Indian federal structure. Constitutional law practitioners should note that the Court has effectively foreclosed the argument that a Governor possesses an implied power to indefinitely stall legislation through inaction, an interpretation that had found tacit acceptance in practice across several states.
For state governments engaged in disputes with Governors over pending Bills, this order provides clear judicial authority to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking mandamus for timely gubernatorial action. The ruling also strengthens the broader principle that constitutional functionaries who derive their authority from the Constitution cannot exercise that authority in a manner that defeats the constitutional scheme itself.
The matter remains significant as it addresses the recurring tension between elected state governments and centrally appointed Governors, a theme that has gained prominence in Indian constitutional discourse in recent years.