Supreme Court Reasserts Governor’s Constitutional Powers on Assent to Bills

Delhi: Frequent tussles between State governments and Governors over pending Bills have become a recurring feature of Indian politics. While many critics argue that Governors often act as agents of the Union government, it is equally important to understand the constitutional foundation, purpose, and limits of the Governor’s authority. In this context, the recent judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court marks a significant turning point, particularly because it revisits and overturns an earlier Division Bench ruling that had favoured the Tamil Nadu government. The new verdict emphatically reiterates that the Governor’s powers under the Constitution—especially regarding assent to Bills—are not bound by a prescribed time limit.

Article 200: The Governor’s Powers and the Absence of a Time Limit

Under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, a Governor can take four possible courses of action when a Bill is presented for assent:

1. Grant assent,
   
   
2. Withhold assent,
   
   
3. Return the Bill for reconsideration, or
   
   
4. Reserve it for the President’s consideration.

The absence of any constitutional time frame for the Governor to act on a Bill has often led to friction with State governments, which routinely accuse Governors of delaying assent to politically sensitive legislation. This controversy ultimately raised the question: Can the judiciary impose a time limit where the Constitution has been silent?

Supreme Court Rejects the ‘Deemed Assent’ Doctrine

In an earlier case involving the Tamil Nadu government, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that if the Governor failed to act within a reasonable time, the Bill should be treated as having received “deemed assent.” The Constitution Bench has now struck down that view, declaring it unconstitutional.

The Bench observed that the judiciary cannot introduce into the Constitution provisions that do not exist, as doing so would amount to judicial amendment—an authority vested solely in Parliament. Therefore, the concept of “deemed assent,” not being grounded in the Constitution, has been invalidated.

This reconsideration followed a Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu, compelling the Court to re-examine the earlier ruling.

Discretionary Powers and the Scope of Judicial Review

The judgment also clarifies the nature and extent of the Governor’s discretionary powers. Article 200 confers a measure of discretion, allowing the Governor to act independently of the Council of Ministers in certain circumstances.

Ordinarily, the Governor’s decisions concerning assent to Bills are not subject to judicial review. However, the Court noted that indefinite and unjustified withholding of a Bill could invite judicial intervention. In such cases, courts may direct the Governor to consider the Bill and take a decision, but cannot compel the Governor to approve it.

This nuanced interpretation ensures that constitutional balance is preserved: while preventing potential misuse of gubernatorial authority, the Court simultaneously protects the constitutional autonomy of the office of the Governor within India’s federal structure.