The Hindu: Published on 21st November 2025.
Why in News?
Recently, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the powers and limitations of Governors and the President regarding assent to bills passed by state legislatures. The verdict defines the balance of power between state legislatures and constitutional authorities and establishes how Governors and the President can exercise their constitutional discretion and when judicial intervention is permissible.
Key Points
The Supreme Court clarified the rights of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that Governors have only three options when a bill is presented:
- Grant Assent to the bill
- Withhold and Return with Comments to the legislature
- Reserve the Bill for the President’s Consideration
The Court made it clear that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold a bill, and the practice of “withholding assent simpliciter”—simply blocking a bill without action—is unconstitutional. It also rejected the concept of “Deemed Assent”, meaning a bill cannot automatically be considered approved after a certain period of inaction, as this would violate the Constitution.
Major Findings
- Indefinite Delay is Unconstitutional: Governors cannot indefinitely postpone decisions on any bill. Such delay undermines federalism and the democratic legislative process.
- Only Three Options Exist: Under Article 200, Governors have only three choices; there is no fourth option, making it clear that their discretion is limited.
- Deemed Assent is Unconstitutional: Bills cannot automatically be considered approved if a decision is not made within a specific timeframe.
- Court Cannot Fix Timelines: Articles 200 and 201 are designed with elasticity, so the Supreme Court cannot impose fixed deadlines on Governors or the President.
- Limited Judicial Intervention: Courts can issue limited mandamus orders only in cases of prolonged and unexplained delay. Judicial intervention cannot interfere with the quality of discretion exercised; it only ensures the process moves forward.
- Governors Must Provide Reasons: Governors are required to provide clear, written reasons when withholding or returning a bill, ensuring transparency and accountability.
- Presidential Powers Clarified: Under Article 201, the Court also clarified that no fixed timeline can be imposed for the President’s decision on reserved bills.
- Limited Role of Judiciary: The Court cannot interfere in the substantive discretion of Governors or the President. Judicial action is limited to ensuring that unexplained delays do not obstruct the legislative process.
What’s Next?
State governments can now demand action on bills that have been pending for long periods. Courts will intervene only in cases where political reasons cause unnecessary delays in the passage of a bill. This judgment will serve as a guiding precedent for all states and strengthen the independence of legislatures. Governors will now be required to provide written reasons whenever a bill is withheld or returned, increasing transparency and accountability.
