SC Prescribes Time Limits For Governors To Act On Bills

Recently, the Supreme Court prescribed time limits for Governors to act on Bills.

• The Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142. 
  • This power, used sparingly, allows the Court to do “complete justice” when other remedies are unavailable.
• The Court’s decision to exercise this power reflects its displeasure with the Governor’s actions, particularly the long delay in granting assent.

Background of the Case

• Tamil Nadu Governor R. N. Ravi withholding assent to 10 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. 
• The Tamil Nadu government, led by DMK, challenged this in the Supreme Court in 2023, accusing the Governor of political interference and delaying governance.
• The governor delayed assent for several months, using his discretionary powers under Article 200. 
• • The Tamil Nadu government argued this amounted to a “pocket veto”, preventing the effective functioning of the elected government.

Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Judgment on the Tamil Nadu Governor’s Role

• Governor’s Discretionary Power: The Governor must act on the aid and advice of the state’s Council of Ministers, as per Article 163 of the Constitution.
  • Except for specific cases under the second proviso to Article 200 and matters like Articles 31, 32, etc.
  • The governor cannot exercise absolute or pocket veto. 
  • He must either assent to a Bill, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President, and this decision must be made promptly.
• Time Limits Imposed on the Governor: The Court prescribed strict time limits for the Governor’s actions regarding Bills:
  • One month for granting assent or reserving the Bill for the President.
  • Three months for withholding assent when acting contrary to the advice of the state Cabinet.
  • One month for granting assent after a Bill is re-passed by the legislature after reconsideration.
• Governor’s Inaction and Pocket Veto: The Court made it clear that the Governor cannot delay or withhold assent indefinitely. 
  • The phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 should not be treated loosely or allow for prolonged delays, as such delays undermine the functioning of the state legislature and the elected government.
• Judicial Review of Governor’s Actions: The actions of the Governor regarding assent to Bills are subject to judicial review. 
  • If the Governor’s actions are found to be arbitrary or contrary to constitutional principles, courts have the authority to intervene.
• Role of the Governor as a Constitutional Head: The Supreme Court underscored that the Governor’s role is to act as a “friend, philosopher, and guide” to the government, not as a political agent. 
  • The Governor must respect the principles of parliamentary democracy, uphold the will of the people, and not obstruct the elected government’s functioning.
  • Governors must facilitate governance and avoid actions that create political roadblocks or delay the legislative process.
• Governor’s Power to Reserve Bills for President: Governor must reserve Bills for the President’s consideration only in exceptional circumstances, such as when a Bill could endanger the powers of the High Court. 
  • The Governor cannot refer the same Bill to the President after it has been re-passed by the legislature unless it is substantially different.
• Action on Pending Bills: The Court declared that the 10 Bills pending with the Tamil Nadu Governor were effectively assented to due to the prolonged delay. 
  • The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, directing that these Bills be treated as law, given the undue delay in action.

Constitutional Provisions Related to the Governor’s Role

• Article 153 – Governor of a State: Every State in India shall have a Governor. 
  • The Governor is appointed by the President of India and holds office during the President’s pleasure.
• Article 154: The executive power of the State is vested in the Governor, who exercises it directly or through officers subordinate to him, in accordance with the Constitution.
• Article 163 (Council of Ministers): The Governor shall exercise his functions with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, except in cases where he is required by the Constitution to act in his discretion.
• • Article 163(2) – Governor’s Discretion: In case of a dispute regarding whether the Governor is required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor is final.
• Article 164 (Appointment of Chief Minister and Council of Ministers): The Governor is responsible for appointing the Chief Minister and other Ministers. The Council of Ministers remains in office during the pleasure of the Governor.
• Article 167 (Duties of the Chief Minister): The Chief Minister is required to communicate to the Governor all decisions of the Council of Ministers, proposals for legislation, and other information related to State administration.
• Article 200 – Assent to Bills: When a Bill is passed by the State Legislature, it is presented to the Governor for assent. 
  • The Governor has four options:
    • Grant assent to the Bill.
    • Withhold assent to the Bill.
    • Return the Bill for reconsideration by the Legislature (except Money Bills).
    • Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.
  • The Governor must act on the Bill “as soon as possible”. 
    • If a Bill is returned and re-passed by the Legislature, the Governor must assent to it unless the Bill has changed substantially.
• Article 361 (Protection of the Governor): Provides immunity to the Governor, stating that no proceedings can be initiated against him in court for anything done or omitted in the exercise of his powers.
• Article 356 – President’s Rule: The Governor can report to the President under Article 356 if the government in a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution. 
• Article 200 – Reservation of Bills for President: If a Bill passed by the State Legislature threatens the powers of the High Court or raises a matter of constitutional importance, the Governor may reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration under this provision.

Reasons for Delayed Assent by Governors 

• Political Disagreement with State Government: In Opposition-ruled states, Governors—appointed by the Union Government—are often accused of stalling state legislative Bills as a political tactic.
  • In Tamil Nadu, Governor R. N. Ravi withheld assent to 10 Bills passed by the DMK-led Assembly, creating legislative deadlock. 
• Exploitation of Lack of Time Limits in Article 200: Article 200 uses the phrase “as soon as possible” but does not specify any deadline, enabling Governors to delay Bills indefinitely.
  • In the Kerala case, 8 Bills were kept pending for up to 2 years. 
• Personal Discretion and Misuse of Constitutional Power: Governors sometimes exercise discretionary powers arbitrarily or without adequate constitutional reasoning.
  • The Supreme Court in the Shamsher Singh (1974) case clarified that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and that the use of discretion is only in exceptional, explicitly stated situations​.
• Strategic Delay to Block State Legislative Agenda: In some cases, delaying assent appears to be a deliberate move to obstruct the state government’s policies, particularly welfare or reform-oriented Bills.
  • In Kerala, Bills related to university reforms, Lokayukta changes, and the Public Health Bill, 2021 were kept pending for long periods. The SC noted this as an affront to representative democracy and Article 21 rights​.
• Constitutional or Legal Concerns over Bills: Sometimes Governors delay assent if they doubt the legality or constitutional validity of the Bill or need more time for examination.
  • In the Kerala case, the Governor raised objections over the clarity of provisions in the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill and sought clarifications from the Cabinet.

Key Concerns Related to Governors in India

• Delayed Assent to Bills and “Pocket Veto”: Governors withholding or sitting on Bills indefinitely undermines the legislative authority of elected state governments.
  • In Tamil Nadu and Kerala, multiple Bills were kept pending for months to years, prompting Supreme Court intervention. 
• Political Partisanship and Misuse of Office: Governors are often accused of acting as agents of the Centre, especially in Opposition-ruled states, damaging federal balance.
  • The Sarkaria Commission (1988) observed that many Governors looked forward to future posts under the Union and thus acted without impartiality. 
• Lack of Accountability and Removal Mechanism: Governors enjoy immunity under Article 361, and there is no process for impeachment, leading to concerns over lack of accountability.
  • In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), the SC held that although Governors enjoy immunity, their actions can be reviewed for constitutional validity​.
• Interference in Day-to-Day Administration: Governors have increasingly intervened in executive matters, such as university appointments, cabinet decisions, and legislative sessions.
  • In Delhi, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2021 curtailed the Legislative Assembly’s powers, making the LG’s opinion mandatory for executive actions. The SC in 2023 reaffirmed that the elected government controls administration, not the LG​.
• Arbitrary Use of Discretionary Powers: Discretion under Articles 163 and 200 is often used beyond constitutional limits, especially during government formation or Bill reservation.
  • In Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), the SC ruled that the Governor must act on aid and advice, and not use discretion except where expressly permitted by the Constitution​.
• Undermining of Democratic Mandate: Actions like delay in summoning assemblies, not reading parts of the Governor’s address, or bypassing the CM’s advice weaken the state’s democratic setup.
  • The Supreme Court in November 2023 emphasized that Governors cannot act in a way that thwarts lawmaking or disrupts legislative autonomy, reaffirming the need to safeguard parliamentary democracy​.

Way Forward: Reforming the Role of Governors in India

• Prescribe Time Limits for Assent to Bills: The Constitution should be amended or clarified to prescribe specific time limits within which a Governor must act on Bills passed by the State Legislature. 
  • SC (2025) invoked Article 142 to mandate time-bound action and prevent “pocket veto”​.
• Reform the Appointment Process: The appointment of Governors should involve consultation with the Chief Minister of the concerned state to ensure federal balance and impartiality. 
  • The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended that Governors be selected from apolitical backgrounds and with the consent of the state to avoid allegations of bias​.
• Ensure Security of Tenure and Impartiality: To promote independence, Governors should have a fixed tenure and should not be removed arbitrarily by the Central Government. 
  • The Punchhi Commission emphasized that arbitrary removal of Governors erodes their neutrality and independence​.
• Limit Discretionary Powers: The Constitution must clearly define the limited circumstances under which the Governor can exercise discretion. The use of such powers should be subject to reasoned explanation and judicial review to prevent misuse.
  • In Shamsher Singh (1974) and Nabam Rebia (2016) case, SC emphasized that discretion is the exception, not the rule​.
• Create a Mechanism for Grievance Redressal: A formal institutional mechanism, such as an Inter-State Council sub-committee or a constitutional ombudsman, should be created to mediate disputes between the Governor and the elected state government.
• Enact a Code of Conduct for Governors: To maintain constitutional decorum and avoid political controversy.
  • Parliament may frame a “Governor’s Code of Conduct”, drawing from the Constitutional Morality doctrine invoked by SC in the NCT Delhi case (2018)​.
• Consider Impeachment or Censure Provisions: Presently, Governors enjoy protection under Article 361 and are not answerable to the State Legislature, creating a gap in democratic checks and balances.
  • To ensure accountability, mechanisms such as legislative censure or even a structured process for removal may be considered.

Conclusion

The recent Supreme Court’s ruling decisively addressed the Governor’s delay in acting on Bills by prescribing strict time limits and reinforcing constitutional morality. By curbing the misuse of discretionary powers and pocket vetoes, the judgment strengthens parliamentary democracy and federal harmony, setting a precedent for Governors to facilitate, not obstruct, elected state governments.