Governor's Assent is the constitutional act by which the Governor of a state signifies approval of a bill passed by the state legislature, thereby converting it into law. Under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, the Governor may assent to a bill, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the consideration of the President — and the Supreme Court has held that the Governor possesses no absolute veto and cannot indefinitely withhold action on a duly passed bill.
Legal definition
Article 200 of the Constitution prescribes the Governor's options upon receiving a bill:
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."
The proviso to Article 200 further provides:
"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 or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom."
This proviso is constitutionally significant: once the legislature reconsiders and re-passes a bill returned by the Governor, the Governor is bound to grant assent. The Constitution thus provides a legislative override mechanism that prevents gubernatorial obstruction.
Article 201 deals with bills reserved for the President: the President may assent, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the bill (other than a Money Bill) for reconsideration. If the legislature re-passes the bill, the President is not obliged to assent.
How courts have interpreted this term
Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala [AIR 1962 SC 694]
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court addressed whether a bill pending the Governor's or President's assent lapses upon dissolution of the state legislature. The Court held that such a bill does not lapse merely because the legislature that passed it has been dissolved, since Article 200 does not impose any time limit within which the Governor must act. The Court reasoned that the bill-to-law process, once a bill is passed by the legislature and presented to the Governor, enters an executive phase that is not extinguished by the subsequent dissolution of the legislature. This ruling established that a pending bill survives dissolution and may receive assent from the Governor or President even after a new legislature has been constituted.
State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu [2025 SCC OnLine SC 548]
In a transformative judgment delivered on 8 April 2025, the Supreme Court directly addressed the growing practice of Governors indefinitely withholding assent to state bills. The Court held that the Governor has no absolute veto power under Article 200 and cannot engage in a "pocket veto" by simply declining to act. The Bench prescribed specific timelines: the Governor must act on a bill "forthwith," subject to a maximum period of one month for withholding assent or reserving the bill; and if the Governor returns the bill with recommendations, the return must occur within a maximum of three months. The Court further held that once the legislature re-passes a returned bill — with or without amendments — the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent under the proviso to Article 200 and cannot at that stage reserve the bill for the President.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker [(2016) 8 SCC 237]
The Supreme Court held that the Governor, while exercising functions under Article 200, acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163. The Governor does not exercise Article 200 in his discretion (unlike certain other functions) and must act in conformity with ministerial advice unless the Constitution specifically requires otherwise.
Why this matters
The Governor's assent is the final step in the state legislative process. Without it, a bill passed by the legislature cannot become law. The practical significance of Article 200 has grown dramatically in recent years as several Governors have delayed or withheld assent to politically sensitive bills, raising fundamental questions about the relationship between elected state governments and centrally appointed Governors.
For practitioners advising state governments, the 2025 Tamil Nadu judgment is now the governing authority. It establishes that gubernatorial inaction is amenable to judicial review and that state governments may seek a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court or High Court to compel the Governor to act within the prescribed timelines. This is a significant development because, until this ruling, Governors could effectively exercise a pocket veto with impunity — the Constitution prescribed no timeline and courts had not previously intervened.
A critical distinction that practitioners must understand is between withholding assent and reserving a bill for the President. When the Governor withholds assent, the bill is dead — it does not become law. When the Governor reserves the bill, it is transmitted to the President under Article 201, who may assent, withhold assent, or return it. Reservation is mandatory for bills that derogate from the powers of the High Court under Article 200, and is customary for bills on certain subjects including those affecting Central legislation. The 2025 Tamil Nadu judgment clarified that the Governor cannot reserve a bill for the President after the legislature has re-passed it following the Governor's return — at that stage, assent is constitutionally mandatory.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Related provisions:
Frequently asked questions
Can the Governor refuse to sign a bill passed by the state legislature?
Yes, but with significant limitations. Under Article 200, the Governor may withhold assent, but the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) held that the Governor cannot exercise an absolute veto or pocket veto. If the Governor returns the bill and the legislature re-passes it, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent under the proviso to Article 200. The Governor must also act within prescribed timelines — one month for initial action, three months if returning with recommendations.
What happens when the Governor reserves a bill for the President?
Under Article 201, the President may assent to the bill, withhold assent, or (in the case of a non-Money Bill) direct the Governor to return it to the state legislature for reconsideration. Unlike the Governor's position under the proviso to Article 200, the President is not bound to assent even if the legislature re-passes the bill. There is no constitutional time limit prescribed for the President to act on reserved bills.
Does a bill lapse if the Governor has not given assent and the legislature is dissolved?
No. The Supreme Court in Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala (1962) held that a bill pending the Governor's or President's assent does not lapse upon dissolution of the state legislature. The constitutional process of assent is distinct from the legislative process of passing the bill, and the former is not extinguished by dissolution.
Is the Governor's decision to withhold assent subject to judicial review?
Yes. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) confirmed that the Governor's action — or inaction — under Article 200 is amenable to judicial review. The Court may issue a writ of mandamus directing the Governor to act within the constitutionally prescribed timelines. The Governor cannot claim immunity from judicial scrutiny by invoking discretionary power, as Article 200 functions are exercised on ministerial advice under Article 163.
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.