The Supreme Court has given a clear and important interpretation of the Governor’s powers under Article 200 of the Constitution. In its opinion on the Presidential Reference, the Court said a Governor cannot block legislation by refusing to act on a Bill. The judges explained that the Constitution does not give the Governor the authority to withhold assent by simply keeping the Bill pending. Allowing such inaction, the Court said, would go against the basic principles of federalism and undermine the authority of State Legislatures.
While examining Article 200, the Constitution Bench noted that the Governor has only three legitimate options when a Bill is presented. He may give assent, he may reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration, or he may withhold assent by sending the Bill back to the Legislature along with comments. The Court made it clear that this last step is mandatory whenever assent is withheld, except in the case of a Money Bill, which cannot be returned at all. Because a Money Bill cannot be sent back, the Bench warned that allowing a Governor to simply sit on a Bill would make it possible to stall even a Money Bill, something the Constitution never intended.
The Union Government argued that returning a Bill is an additional fourth option mentioned only in the first proviso to Article 200. The Court rejected this approach and held that the proviso must be read together with the main part of the Article. Once this combined reading is accepted, the Governor cannot withhold assent without returning the Bill for reconsideration. And once the Legislature passes the Bill again, with or without changes, the Governor is constitutionally bound to give assent.
The judges highlighted that the Constitution expects a dialogic relationship between the Governor and the Legislature. This exchange of views is part of the larger framework of cooperative federalism. If a Governor could indefinitely withhold a Bill without giving reasons or returning it, it would weaken the State Legislature and disrupt the balance between the Union and the States. The Court encouraged a more nuanced understanding of checks and balances, one that is built on conversation, reflection and constitutional cooperation rather than obstruction.
At the same time, the Court clarified two additional points. Governors and the President cannot be placed under judicially fixed deadlines for deciding on Bills. The Constitution also does not recognise the idea of “deemed assent,” meaning assent cannot be assumed simply because a Bill has remained pending for a long time.
The opinion was delivered in Special Reference No. 1 of 2025, titled In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India. This reference was sought to resolve ongoing disputes between State Governments and Governors over delays in clearing Bills. With this ruling, the Supreme Court has reinforced the central role of State Legislatures in the law-making process and ensured that Governors cannot use inaction as a method to stop a Bill.