Presidential Reference on Governor's Powers

In 2025, the President of India submitted a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking clarity on the scope and limits of a Governor's power to withhold assent to Bills passed by state legislatures. The reference arose from prolonged deadlocks in states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where Governors had indefinitely sat on crucial legislation, effectively stalling the elected governments’ agendas. A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud examined the constitutional scheme, the role of the Governor as a constitutional head, and the principle of Cabinet responsibility. The Court unanimously held that a Governor cannot arbitrarily or indefinitely delay action on Bills, as such inaction subverts parliamentary democracy and federal principles. The advisory opinion directed that Governors must either grant assent or reserve a Bill for presidential consideration within a reasonable time, reinforcing the primacy of the legislature in a democratic setup.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Governors do not have the power to defeat the legislative process through indefinite inaction. They must exercise their functions under Article 200 within a reasonable period, either giving assent or reserving the Bill for the President. The judgment clarified that the Governor’s role is largely formal and must align with ministerial advice, negating any claim of a personal veto.

The core dispute focused on whether a Governor possesses unbridled discretionary authority to withhold or indefinitely delay assent to state legislation, and whether such inaction violates the basic structure of India’s parliamentary democracy and federal equilibrium.

The decision was hailed as a landmark reinforcement of federal principles, curbing the potential misuse of gubernatorial powers to destabilize opposition-ruled state governments. It provided constitutional clarity, reduced Centre-state friction, and empowered state legislatures by ensuring timely enactment of democratically passed laws. The reference and the ruling also reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction as a vital mechanism for resolving constitutional impasses.