Supreme Court Clarifies Governors’ Powers: No Indefinite Delay on Bills
Court says Governors cannot stall Bills, but judiciary cannot fix strict timelines
Verdict strengthens cooperative federalism and answers 14 questions from President Murmu
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: November 22, 2025:
In a historic advisory opinion, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the constitutional powers of Governors in dealing with Bills passed by State legislatures. Responding to a Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution, the five-judge Constitution Bench addressed 14 critical questions about the role of Governors and the President in the legislative process. The ruling, delivered on 20 November 2025, is being seen as a landmark in defining the balance between elected governments and constitutional authorities.
Background of the Case
The reference came after repeated controversies where Governors delayed or withheld assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies. The issue gained national attention following the Tamil Nadu Governor case in April 2025, where the Supreme Court had earlier ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on Bills. President Murmu sought clarity on broader constitutional questions, leading to this detailed advisory opinion.
Key Points of the Verdict
- No indefinite delay: The Court ruled that Governors cannot stall Bills indefinitely. They must act within a “reasonable time.”
- Options under Article 200: Governors have three options when presented with a Bill — grant assent, reserve it for the President, or return it to the legislature for reconsideration.
- No “withholding assent simpliciter”: The Court clarified that Governors cannot simply refuse assent without reason.
- Judiciary cannot fix deadlines: While Governors must act promptly, the Court said it cannot impose strict timelines on constitutional authorities.
- President’s role: Under Article 201, the President also cannot delay Bills indefinitely. However, the judiciary cannot compel the President to act within fixed deadlines.
Cooperative Federalism Emphasized
The Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, stressed that India’s governance rests on cooperative federalism. Governors are expected to work in harmony with elected State governments rather than obstruct them. The Court warned against “prolonged and evasive constitutional inaction” that undermines the will of the people.
Responses to the 14 Questions
The Court’s 111-page opinion systematically addressed each of the 14 questions posed by President Murmu. Some highlights include:
- Governor’s discretion: Limited to constitutional grounds, not political disagreements.
- Assent deemed justiciable: Courts can review Governor’s actions if they amount to obstruction.
- Return of Bills: Governors can return Bills only once; if re-passed, they must assent or reserve for the President.
- Ordinances: Governors cannot misuse ordinance powers to bypass legislatures.
- Judicial limits: Courts cannot prescribe hard deadlines but can intervene if constitutional authorities act in bad faith.
Significance of the Verdict
This ruling is significant for several reasons:
- It strengthens State legislatures by preventing Governors from blocking laws indefinitely.
- It clarifies constitutional boundaries, reducing friction between Governors and elected governments.
- It preserves judicial restraint, ensuring courts do not overstep into executive functions.
- It reinforces democratic accountability, reminding Governors that they are constitutional heads, not political actors.
Political and Legal Reactions
Legal experts hailed the verdict as a balanced approach. It prevents misuse of gubernatorial powers while respecting constitutional limits on judicial intervention. Political leaders from several States welcomed the clarity, noting that Governors had often been accused of acting as “agents of the Centre” rather than neutral constitutional authorities.
Broader Context
This is the 16th Presidential Reference since the Supreme Court’s establishment. Past references have clarified issues ranging from judicial appointments to parliamentary privileges. The current opinion is expected to shape Centre-State relations for years to come.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on Governors’ powers marks a turning point in India’s constitutional journey. By answering 14 complex questions, the Court has struck a balance between executive discretion and legislative supremacy. While Governors retain certain powers, they cannot obstruct the democratic process. The verdict strengthens India’s federal structure and ensures that constitutional authorities act with responsibility and accountability.
GEO Keywords
- 16th Presidential Reference
- Supreme Court Governors powers verdict
- Presidential Reference 14 questions
- Governor assent to Bills India
- Article 200 and 201 Supreme Court ruling
- Cooperative federalism India
- President Murmu Supreme Court reference
- Tamil Nadu Governor case 2025
- Supreme Court advisory opinion Governors
- Governor cannot stall Bills India
- Supreme Court verdict November 2025