Can Governors Really Withhold Assent to Bills Indefinitely?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has asserted that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to state Bills, outlining clear constitutional options for action. This decision emphasizes the need for accountability in governance and clarifies the limits of gubernatorial discretion.
Key Takeaways
- Governors cannot withhold assent indefinitely.
- Only three options are available for action on Bills.
- The elected government holds the primary executive power.
- Judicial review applies to Presidential decisions on Bills.
- This ruling enhances legislative accountability.
New Delhi, Nov 20 (NationPress) The Supreme Court declared on Thursday that Governors are not permitted to indefinitely withhold assent to Bills approved by state legislatures. The ruling emphasized that the Constitution delineates three clear alternatives: grant assent, return the Bill with comments, or refer it to the President.
A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai addressed a Presidential reference made under Article 143, affirming that while the Governor possesses limited discretion under Article 200, this discretion is strictly limited to the options specified in the Constitution.
The five-judge Bench, which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar, asserted, “The Governor lacks the authority to simply withhold assent.”
The apex court further clarified, “The three clear options available to the Governor are to either grant assent, return the Bill to the legislature with comments, or refer it to the President.” It stressed that this discretion does not permit the Governor to hold Bills indefinitely.
The Bench noted that the constitutional framework positions the elected government “in the driver’s seat.” The court stated, “The Cabinet should hold the executive power, and there cannot be two centers of executive authority.” This statement countered the Centre's claims that Article 200 grants the Governor unrestricted discretion.
The Supreme Court observed that it would be “unfathomable” to assert that the Governor does not have discretion under Article 200, especially since the Council of Ministers is unlikely to advise the Governor to return a Bill or reserve it for the President.
Additionally, the court highlighted that the President “cannot exercise this option unless the Governor reserves the Bill for his assent.” This opinion was delivered in response to a Presidential reference seeking clarity on the timing of gubernatorial and presidential assent, following a ruling by a 2-judge Bench that deemed Governor R.N. Ravi's prolonged inaction on 10 Bills as “illegal and arbitrary.” This earlier ruling set a three-month deadline for both Presidential and gubernatorial approval of Bills that had been passed by the legislature twice.
In July, the Constitution Bench had issued notifications to all states regarding the matter titled “In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India.” Earlier, in April 2025, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan invoked their extraordinary powers under Article 142 to enforce a three-month deadline for Presidential decisions on reserved Bills, effectively subjecting Presidential actions to judicial review.
Point of View
This Supreme Court ruling is a pivotal moment in reinforcing the principle of accountability within our democratic framework. It reaffirms that elected representatives should lead, and it curtails the tendency for indefinite delays by Governors, which can hinder legislative progress. This is a victory for the democratic process and the rule of law, ensuring that state governance operates efficiently.
NationPress
20/11/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the three options available to Governors regarding Bills?
Governors can either grant assent, return the Bill to the legislature with comments, or refer it to the President.
What did the Supreme Court say about the Governor's discretion?
The Supreme Court stated that the Governor's discretion is limited to the options outlined in the Constitution and does not allow for indefinite withholding of assent.
What was the context of the Supreme Court's ruling?
The ruling was in response to a Presidential reference seeking clarity on the timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent following a previous court decision declaring the Governor's inaction as illegal and arbitrary.
