Supreme Court Clarification on Governor’s Powers to Assent Bills

Source: IE

Subject: Polity

Context: The Supreme Court delivered a landmark five-judge Constitution Bench opinion clarifying the powers of Governors and the President regarding assent to state Bills.

About Supreme Court Clarification on Governor’s Powers to Assent Bills:

What it is?

• The case concerns the constitutional process under Articles 200 and 201, which govern how Governors and the President act when a Bill passed by a State Legislature is placed before them for assent.

• Multiple States complained that Governors were withholding or delaying assent, creating legislative paralysis.

Constitutional Powers of the Governor (Article 200):

When a Bill is presented, the Governor has only three options:

• Give Assent

• Withhold Assent AND return the Bill to the Legislature with recommendations (except Money Bills).

• Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration (mandatory in a few cases, discretionary in others).

The Governor cannot “withhold assent simpliciter” — meaning they cannot keep a Bill pending indefinitely without action.

Major Clarifications Provided by the Supreme Court:

• No indefinite delay: “Prolonged, unexplained, indefinite inaction” by Governors is unconstitutional and subject to judicial review.

• No ‘deemed assent’:

• The SC rejected the earlier ruling suggesting that if a Governor delays assent, the Bill becomes law automatically. Article 142 cannot be used to bypass constitutional procedure.

• The SC rejected the earlier ruling suggesting that if a Governor delays assent, the Bill becomes law automatically.

• Article 142 cannot be used to bypass constitutional procedure.

• Discretion exists — but is limited:

• While Governors exercise discretion under Article 200, they are not bound by Cabinet advice for assent decisions. But this discretion cannot be misused to block elected governments.

• While Governors exercise discretion under Article 200, they are not bound by Cabinet advice for assent decisions.

• But this discretion cannot be misused to block elected governments.

• No judicial timelines: Courts cannot impose fixed deadlines on Governors or the President because the Constitution uses the phrase “as soon as possible”.

• President’s powers under Article 201:

• Similar to the Governor’s powers but operate only when a Bill is reserved. The President’s decision is not justiciable, and courts cannot impose timelines.

• Similar to the Governor’s powers but operate only when a Bill is reserved.

• The President’s decision is not justiciable, and courts cannot impose timelines.

• Courts can review ONLY inaction, not the merits: Courts cannot question why the Governor withheld assent, only whether the process was followed.

• Validity of Laws not bills: Courts cannot adjudicate the constitutional validity of a Bill; only a law enacted after assent can be challenged.