Abstract
The constitutional position of the Governor has repeatedly drawn judicial scrutiny, particularly with regard to the assent, review, or withholding of state bills under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution. In recent years, disputes in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, Telangana, and West Bengal have highlighted the recurring practice of Governors withholding or indefinitely sitting on bills, often described as a “pocket veto.”
The Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and other judgments, has reasserted constitutional limits on gubernatorial discretion by prescribing timelines, recognizing the authority of elected legislatures, and restoring the principle of federal balance. This article traces the evolution of the Governor’s veto powers, judicial interventions, and the constitutional debates surrounding the absence of timelines for gubernatorial assent.
Introduction
Article 200 of the Constitution of India empowers the Governor of a state to either grant assent, withhold assent, reserve a bill for Presidential consideration, or return it to the legislature for reconsideration. Although seemingly procedural, this provision has far-reaching political and constitutional implications.
The Governor is a nominal head appointed by the Union government, yet bound by obligations toward the state legislature. This dual role generates a pressing constitutional question: Can a Governor, by indefinitely withholding assent, defeat the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives?
The Supreme Court has increasingly intervened to address this controversy, highlighting tensions between federalism, democratic accountability, and textual vagueness in Article 200.
Legal Framework
Article 200 grants four options when a bill is presented to the Governor:
- Assent – signing the bill into law.
- Withhold assent – effectively terminating the bill.
- Reserve for Presidential consideration – in cases involving constitutional conflict.
- Return for reconsideration – with suggested modifications.
Although the Constitution requires the Governor to act “as soon as possible,” no specific timeframe is prescribed. This ambiguity has enabled Governors to sit indefinitely on bills, triggering allegations of misuse.
Additionally, Article 32 provides citizens the remedy of a writ of mandamus, empowering courts to compel constitutional authorities to perform duties neglected or delayed.
Proof, Facts, and Authorities
The Governor’s role is crucial in ensuring smooth lawmaking, yet the indefinite withholding of assent disturbs the balance between executive discretion and legislative supremacy. The absence of clear timelines for action under Article 200 has led to constitutional gridlock.
Recent disputes illustrate this issue:
- In Tamil Nadu, ten bills reconsidered and passed by the legislature were reserved or vetoed, prompting judicial intervention.
- In Kerala, petitions challenged the Governor’s withholding of assent to four welfare-related bills.
- In Telangana, more than ten bills have faced prolonged delays in gubernatorial approval.
- In Punjab, seven bills, including three money bills, remain pending before the Governor.
These delays undermine the phrase “as soon as possible” and risk reducing the Governor’s role to an obstructive veto rather than a constitutional check.
Case Laws and Precedents
1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu
The Court clarified that the Governor’s power to withhold assent is not absolute. It must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with constitutional obligations. Decisions on reserved bills should generally be taken within three months, with recorded reasons for further delay.
2. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
The Supreme Court held that both the President and Governors must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, limiting their discretionary powers.
3. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
The Court reaffirmed that the Governor’s discretion is not absolute and is subject to the advice of elected representatives. This interpretation strengthens the principle of responsible government.
4. Ongoing Presidential Reference
A Constitution Bench is presently considering whether the Court can constitutionally fix timelines for the President and Governors in deciding on pending bills. The outcome will significantly shape future federal practice.
Suggested Future Reforms
- Codification of timelines through constitutional or legislative amendment to prevent indefinite delays.
- Mandatory recording of reasons for withholding assent, ensuring transparency and accountability.
- Deemed assent provision – if no decision is taken within the prescribed period, the bill should automatically become law.
Such reforms would restore balance between the executive, legislature, and judiciary, ensuring constitutional accountability and federal harmony.
Conclusion
The indefinite delay of gubernatorial assent threatens the foundation of parliamentary democracy and federalism in India. Judicial interventions against the so-called pocket veto reassert legislative primacy while preserving constitutional checks. By enforcing timelines and emphasizing good faith in gubernatorial action, the Supreme Court aims to reinforce democratic accountability and cooperative federalism.
Effective reforms, particularly codification of timelines, are essential to prevent misuse of Article 200 and to ensure that the Governor remains a constitutional guardian, not a political arbiter.
References
- Constitution of India, Articles 200, 201, 32
- Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831
- Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, (2016) 8 SCC 1
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu
- Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501
- Vaibhav Shukla, “Scrutinizing the Governor’s Power to Withhold Assent: An Indefinite Veto under Article 200?”, Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research (2024)
- Sura Anjana Srimayi, “Article 200: The Veto Power of the Governor and Its Multifaceted Implications,” Legal Mantra (2025)
- Sarthak Gupta, “Sleeping on Bills,” Verfassungsblog (2025)
- Sanya Talwar, “Supreme Court’s Presidential Reference: Can Governors and the President Be Forced to Act Within Timelines?” Law Beat (2025)
FAQs
Q1. Can the Governor abstain from assenting to a bill?
Yes, but refusal must be exercised within constitutional limits and in good faith. If a legislature re-passes a bill, the Governor is bound to assent.
Q2. What is a “pocket veto”?
It refers to the Governor indefinitely sitting on a bill without taking any action.
Q3. Can the Governor reserve any bill for the President?
Yes, but only in specific categories, such as bills affecting High Courts, property acquisition, or fundamental rights.
Q4. What happens if a Governor delays a Money Bill?
The Supreme Court has cautioned that such delays compromise governance and are constitutionally impermissible.
Q5. What occurs when a bill is returned for reconsideration?
The legislature may modify it or re-pass it without changes, in which case the Governor is constitutionally bound to assent.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
