Article 200 is the provision of the Constitution of India that governs the procedure when a bill passed by the State Legislature is presented to the Governor for assent. Under Indian law, the Governor has four options: to grant assent, to withhold assent, to return the bill for reconsideration (if it is not a Money Bill), or to reserve the bill for the consideration of the President under Article 201.
Legal definition
Article 200 of the Constitution of India provides:
Article 200: When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor 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: Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill [...]
If the bill is returned by the Governor and the State Legislature passes the bill again with or without amendments, the Governor "shall not withhold assent therefrom." This means the Governor's power to return a bill is exercisable only once — if the Legislature re-passes the bill, the Governor must grant assent.
The power to reserve a bill for the President's consideration under Article 200, read with Article 201, is mandatory in one situation: when the State Legislature passes a law that derogates from the powers of the High Court under Article 200 proviso. In all other cases, reservation is at the Governor's discretion.
How courts have interpreted this term
Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala [AIR 1962 SC 694]
The Supreme Court held that a bill pending the Governor's assent does not lapse on the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly. The Court observed that the constitutional framers did not provide an express timeline for the Governor's action under Article 200, and acknowledged that where the framers intended timelines, they specified them explicitly.
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab [(1974) 2 SCC 831]
A seven-judge Constitution Bench established the foundational principle that the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163. The Governor's power to reserve bills for the President under Article 200 was identified as one of the limited areas where the Governor may exercise discretion, but the Court held that even this discretion is not absolute and must be exercised reasonably.
State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu [2025 INSC 548]
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by the State Legislature. The Court ruled that where the Governor decides to withhold assent, the bill must be returned to the Legislature "as soon as possible" as stipulated by Article 200, and the Governor's failure to act within a reasonable time renders the withholding unconstitutional. The Court further held that a Governor's purported "veto" — refusing assent without returning the bill — is non-est in law. A Constitution Bench subsequently clarified the scope of Governor's powers under Articles 200 and 201 through a Presidential reference in 2025.
Why this matters
Article 200 is central to the functioning of Indian federalism and has become increasingly contentious in recent years. The provision governs the critical intersection between the elected State Legislature and the gubernatorial office, and its misuse has the potential to paralyse state governance. When a Governor withholds assent to bills without returning them to the Legislature, the democratic mandate of the elected government is effectively negated.
For practitioners and constitutional scholars, the 2025 Supreme Court decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor represents a watershed moment. The Court imposed a time-bound framework on the Governor's decision-making, closing a constitutional gap that had been exploited to indefinitely delay legislation in several states, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana.
A key distinction practitioners must understand is between withholding assent (which requires returning the bill) and reserving the bill for the President (which transfers the decision to the Union executive under Article 201). Once a bill is reserved under Article 201, the President may assent, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the bill to the Legislature. The political implications are significant, as the President acts on the aid and advice of the Union Council of Ministers — effectively giving the Central Government a veto over State legislation.
Related terms
Constitutional framework:
Related provisions:
Frequently asked questions
Can the Governor indefinitely delay assent to a bill?
No. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) ruled that the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent. Article 200 requires the Governor to act "as soon as possible." If the Governor wishes to withhold assent, the bill must be returned to the Legislature with a message for reconsideration. The Court held that a purported "pocket veto" by the Governor is non-est in law and unconstitutional.
What happens if the Legislature re-passes a bill returned by the Governor?
If the State Legislature re-passes the bill with or without amendments after the Governor returns it under Article 200, the Governor "shall not withhold assent therefrom." The language is mandatory — the Governor must grant assent to the re-passed bill. This ensures that the elected Legislature retains the final say on legislation, subject only to the Governor's option to reserve the bill for the President.
In what circumstances must the Governor reserve a bill for the President?
The Governor is constitutionally required to reserve a bill for the President's consideration when the bill would derogate from the powers of the High Court, thereby potentially endangering the position of the High Court under the Constitution. Beyond this mandatory reservation, the Governor may reserve bills for the President at discretion, particularly when the validity of the bill is in question or when the bill relates to matters of national importance.
Is there a difference between Article 200 and Article 201?
Yes. Article 200 deals with the Governor's options when a bill is first presented — assent, withhold, return, or reserve. Article 201 governs what happens after a bill is reserved for the President. Under Article 201, the President may assent, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the bill to the Legislature. Critically, when the President withholds assent under Article 201, the bill is dead — there is no provision for the Legislature to override the President's refusal.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.