Governor’s Role in Legislative Assent||A Paradigm Shift in State-Center Dynamics
- Vinita Pathak
- Apr 19
- 5 min read
Ayaan Siddiqui, St. Xavier’s University Kolkata
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark verdict resolving the constitutional deadlock between the Tamil Nadu Government and Governor R. N. Ravi concerning the assent to 10 state bills. The judgment further accentuates the limits of gubernatorial discretion within the contours of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. This is a landmark development in the constituent parts of India. In this article, We will discuss the Court’s governing instructions, their constitutional justifications, and the consequences for relations between the state and the center.
Constitutional Framework for Gubernatorial Assent
Under Article 200, a bill passed by a state legislature has to be submitted before the Governor, who may:
Grant assent,
Withhold assent,
Return the bill for reconsideration (except money bills), or
Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration under Article 201.’
Notably, Governors do not possess the prerogative to withhold ‘assent’ under specific conditions, like in this case where if a bill is repassed by the legislature after being returned, the Governor “shall not withhold assent.” However, the absence of an explicit timeline in Article 200 enabled Governor Ravi to postpone his decision on 10 bills for over three years which resulted in this constitutional dilemma.
Timeline of the Tamil Nadu Case
The conflict started between 2020 and 2023 when Tamil Nadu's Assembly enacted certain laws concerning the administration of universities, the issuance of public service slots, as well as the release of certain categories of prisoners. To this effect, Governor Ravi refused to give the required assent. This led the Assembly to re-pass the bills during a special session. Instead of assenting as he was supposed to, he reserved the bills for the President’s approval. The Supreme Court later called this “illegal and erroneous in law”.
In 2023, the Tamil Nadu government sought to challenge this inaction via writ petition, arguing that the Governor's inordinate delays stifled governance and contravened foundational principles of the Constitution. The “long-drawn battle of high constitutional order” is what the Supreme Court needed to step in and settle.
Key Procedural Directives from the Supreme Court
1. Nullification of the Governor’s Actions
The court chastised the governor for reserving the re-passed bills claiming they were unconstitutional. Reservation of bills for the President’s assent is unconstitutional arguing article 200 allows this only for the first presentation of a bill. The Governor, after passing the bill, has no option but to assent unless he is satisfied that some material changes have been made to the bill. Invoking Article 142, the court on 18th November, 2023, the day the 10 aforesaid bills were re-presented to the Governor court deemed the bills “assented”.
2. Timelines for Gubernatorial and Presidential Action
In order to prevent any undue interference, the Court set specific deadlines:
Initially: the Governor is required to make the decision in the first month whether to agree, not to agree, or keep in abeyance for the President (based on the Council of Ministers’ recommendation).
Against advice whereby assent is withheld: The Governor has to return the bill within three months.
Re-passed bills: The Governor has to give assent in a month.
President’s decision on reserve bills: 3 months, but must provide justification for failure to act.
The Court emphasized that these timelines simply seek to explain rules of which the Constitution while remaining timelines provide an “emergency” spirit, ensuring “emergency” timeliness where Governors are supposed to function as “sagacious counsellors,” not partisan blockades.
3. Curtailing the Pocket Veto
The Court cast severe doubts on what is understood to be a pocket veto where Governors simply withhold assent forever. Per Judge J.B. Pardiwala, such absence places legislation into its own term “documents of aspirations” and definitely is an affront to legislative sovereignty.
Implications for Federalism and Governance
1. Strengthening State Autonomy
The Court ruled out the overreach by the Governor and thus reaffirmed the dominance of directly elected representatives of the legislature on the laws. The unparalleled situation in Tamil Nadu enabled legal notification of laws without formal assent. The Court had provided effective assent and has set a precedent for other states sitting behind gubernatorial blockades.
2. Clarity for Ongoing Disputes
The same disputes in Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana, where the Governors have kept the bills on hold, will from now on be decided based on this precedent. The Court ordered that its judgment be sent to all the High Courts and Governors, thus ensuring that it is uniformly followed.
3. Reinforcing Constitutional Balance
This particular decision emphasizes that Governors and the President are constitutional functionaries and not politicians. Their prerogative must be exercised in consonance with the advice of the Council of Ministers, save for a few narrowly tailored exceptions.
Critical Analysis of the Judgment
1. Judicial Creativity vs. Textual Interpretation
The triggering control of Article 142 as a means of considering assent has called for abrasive critics. On one side, there are those who perceive this as crossing judicial frontiers; on the other side, those that feel this judgment was necessary in a dysfunctional system. The Court argued this was a temporary measure meant to “calm troubled waters” of contention which has arisen because of the Governor’s actions.
2. Operational Challenges
Practical Issues Strict deadlines may be operationally challenging. Especially in realms where the Governors or President might point towards time management as an administrative standby. The court’s provision for judicial scrutiny in such a scenario shifts the burden from the judges, to judge the validity of the excuses presented.
3. Political Ramifications
This ruling is a step towards the weakening of centralized power over states which are governed by opposition parties, through the office of the Governor. It further circumvents discretionary powers and erodes yet another politically motivated instrument of governance.
Conclusion
The Court’s decision has redrawn the balance of federal power in India by constraining a governor’s prerogative to the bottom line of democratic accountability. In this regard, it alleviates an acute problem for Tamil Nadu, but it's more profound meaning is in stating that governance does not have to be ‘executed’ by constitutional procedures. As states like Kerala and Punjab are poised to make use of this judgment, it marks a turning point where governance is increasingly directed by legislative intent rather than bureaucratic sluggishness.
With regard to setting time limits, the Court has not added to the document’s content, but has instead breathed new life into it—a `new’ spirit to the Constitution—ensuring that the federal structure of India is more like the federal union of India and not a federation that imposes authority from the top. Although this clarity in process is belated, it is a welcome recognition of the courts primacy as the sentinel of constitutional decency in an increasingly democratic India.
Ayaan Siddiqui, St. Xavier’s University Kolkata
コメント