BREAKING -No Timelines for Governor’s Assent : Analysing Pros and Cons

Introduction

The Supreme Court today has clarified that while governors cannot be given rigid deadlines to grant assent to bills under Article 200, their inaction also cannot stretch indefinitely. This issue lies at the very heart of Indian federalism, democratic accountability, and the separation of powers.

But What is Article 200?

“When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President:

Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the. House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly. If the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom:

Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill.”

So basically, under Article 200, a governor has three constitutional options when a bill reaches their desk:

1. Grant assent

2. Return it to the legislature for reconsideration

3. Reserve it for the President

The Constitution does not prescribe a specific time frame for exercising these options. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts cannot simply insert new timelines into the constitutional text. However, unexplained and excessive delay, what the Court described as “indefinite” or “glaring” inaction, can be challenged in court.

The Court also rejected the idea of “deemed assent,” holding that the judiciary cannot step in and substitute its own decision simply because the governor has taken too long.

Let’s weigh the pros and cons of this decision.

Pros: What’s Good About This Discretion

1. Preserves the Structure of the Constitution
   The framers deliberately left “as soon as possible” open-ended. By refusing to impose strict timelines, the Court respects this flexibility and prevents courts from micromanaging governors.

2. Protects the Governor’s Role
   Discretion under Article 200 allows the governor to act as a constitutional check, not just a rubber stamp.

3. Encourages Dialogue
   The Court emphasised that the governor and the state government should engage in “dialogue” rather than obstruction.

4. Limits on Judicial Overreach
   Since courts can’t decide whether a governor’s decision was wise or not, their review is limited. They only ask for a decision, not to substitute their own.

5. Federal Balance
   By affirming the governor’s discretion, the judgment ensures that state legislatures cannot completely bypass the role of a constitutional head. Simultaneously, by threatening review for long delays, it protects elected governments from paralysis.

Cons / Risks: Why This Discretion Can Be Dangerous

1. Risk of Abuse / Partisan Delay
   Governors (appointed by the Centre) might withhold assent for political reasons, stalling legislation from state governments they don’t align with.

2. Legislative Paralysis
   If a governor sits on legislation indefinitely, state governments may struggle to pass crucial laws, especially on urgent matters. Courts have recognised that “stalling bills … is antithetical to the Constitution.”

3. Unexplained Discretion
   Because there is no hard deadline, even a benign delay can raise questions about fairness and transparency.

4. Limited Remedies
   Although courts can issue directions, they cannot guarantee that a governor’s eventual decision will align with the legislature’s will. And they explicitly refuse to impose “deemed assent.”

5. Federal Tensions
   Too much discretion for governors could undermine the power of elected state governments, but too much judicial interference could undercut the office of the governor and the checks and balances the Constitution envisages.

Let’s have a look at some developments that have taken place until now, to have a broader view of the actual functioning of this constitutional provision.

Past & Recent Instances

• Tamil Nadu (R. N. Ravi)
  The most high-profile case. The Governor of Tamil Nadu was accused of delaying assent to 10 bills, some of which had been passed by the assembly multiple times. 
  In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, the SC held that the governor lacked an absolute or “pocket” veto, and used its powers under Article 142 to deem those bills “approved.”

• West Bengal
  The West Bengal government raised the issue in the Supreme Court, alleging that Governor C.V. Ananda Bose was blocking multiple bills without explanation, claiming a violation of Article 200’s obligation.

• Kerala
  The Kerala government filed a petition against Governor Arif Mohammad Khan, arguing that the withholding of several bills was “manifestly arbitrary” and undermined the legislative process.

So what can be the future implications?

What does this mean for The Future?

1. Stronger Accountability, But Not Too Much
   The court’s “reasonable time” test gives governors discretion but ensures they can’t simply stall forever. This could lead to a new constitutional norm: governors’ inaction must be explained and justified.

2. Increased Legal Challenges
   State governments may increasingly approach the judiciary in cases of unexplained delay. Litigation may become a regular check on the Raj Bhavan in states.

3. Political Balance
   Governors may need to engage more meaningfully with state cabinets to avoid accusations of bad faith. There’s a push toward more dialogue, not confrontation.

4. Amendment Debate
   Some may call for a constitutional amendment to clarify the timeline (“reasonable time” is vague). But that would risk reducing the governor to a mere rubber stamp.

5. Governor’s Office Reform
   Over time, the role of governors may be reimagined: stronger accountability + institutional transparency + constraints on misuse.

6. Precedent for Other Constitutional Offices
   This judgment could influence how courts treat similarly ambiguous timelines in other constitutional roles (e.g., President, Lieutenant Governors in UTs).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has chosen a middle path, one that respects the governor’s constitutional discretion without allowing silence to harm democracy. The message is simple: the governor is neither a mere figurehead nor an unreviewable authority. Power must be exercised, and it must be exercised within a reasonable time.

What do you think about this recent legal development? Let us know in the comment section!