Supreme Court Clarifies Governor’s Discretion in Bill Assent

The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of the Governor’s powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, holding that Governors must act within a reasonable time while granting, withholding, or reserving assent to State Bills. The Court observed that indefinite delays in decision-making defeat the spirit of parliamentary democracy and weaken the federal structure.

Article 200 empowers the Governor to (i) grant assent, (ii) withhold assent, or (iii) reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President. However, the Constitution does not prescribe a specific timeline. The Court noted that this absence of an express time limit cannot be used to justify prolonged inaction, as such delays undermine the will of the elected legislature.

The judgment emphasized that the Governor is a constitutional functionary bound by aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 163), except in limited situations where discretion is explicitly provided. The Court reiterated that the Governor’s office is not meant to obstruct the legislative process or act as a parallel political authority.

By stressing timely decision-making, the Court reaffirmed the principles of cooperative federalism, democratic accountability, and constitutional morality. It highlighted that legislative supremacy within the State sphere must be respected, and constitutional mechanisms should not be misused to stall governance.

The ruling may also influence Centre–State relations by discouraging constitutional deadlocks arising from delayed assent to Bills passed by State legislatures.

Significance

The judgment strengthens cooperative federalism by limiting ambiguity surrounding the Governor’s discretion. It reinforces the legislative supremacy of elected State governments and upholds democratic principles by ensuring constitutional offices function within defined boundaries.