Supreme Court Sets Timelines for Governors, President on State Bills
Rebukes Delays in Delays, Obstruction in Legislative Processes
April 13, 2025
The Supreme Court has ruled that governors and the President must adhere to specific timelines when deciding on state bills, affirming its power of judicial review to prevent political obstruction in legislative processes.
In the judgment, the Court clearly stated that no constitutional authority, including governors or the President, is immune from judicial scrutiny, as reported by The Hindustan Times.
At the heart of the judgment was the Tamil Nadu government’s petition against Governor R.N. Ravi, who had delayed assent to several state bills, some pending for more than two years. The Court’s decision states that a governor must act within three months to either give assent or refer a bill to the President. If the state legislature passes the same bill again, the governor is obliged to grant assent immediately, or within one month at most.
Crucially, the court extended similar discipline to the President’s office, requiring the President to make a decision within three months of receiving a bill. Any further delay requires a clear explanation to the concerned state.
The ruling will prevent governors from indefinitely delaying or obstructing state legislation, particularly when state governments and the Union government belong to opposing political parties. The court expressed strong concern about governors acting as political roadblocks, warning that such behaviour damages the federal structure and undermines public confidence in democratic governance.
The judgment noted that governors do not possess discretionary power under Article 200 of the Constitution to arbitrarily withhold assent. The court explicitly rejected any notion of an “absolute veto” or a “pocket veto.”
The judgment rebuked Gov. Ravi’s handling of the Tamil Nadu bills, noting that the prolonged delay had significantly impaired the state government’s ability to deliver on its electoral promises and mandate. It further clarified that withholding assent for reasons such as personal dissatisfaction, political convenience, or irrelevant considerations is unconstitutional.
The Court underlined that reservation of state bills for Presidential consideration is permissible only under very limited circumstances—such as clear violations of fundamental rights, conflicts with constitutional provisions, or contradictions with existing central laws. Any other justification was categorically rejected.
Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar criticised the ruling, labelling it as “judicial overreach,” although the court explicitly acted within its constitutional authority to safeguard federalism and democratic governance.
The Court cited past examples where judicial timelines were set, such as the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case (2021), where the Supreme Court directed the Manipur Assembly speaker to act within a fixed period on disqualification petitions, and the A.G. Perarivalan case (2023), in which undue delay by a governor led the court to directly intervene for the release of convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The ruling is also backed by recommendations from respected bodies like the Sarkaria and Punchi Commissions.
The judgment also proactively suggested practical measures to mitigate future friction between the Centre and states. It recommended that when bills raising constitutional questions are forwarded to the President, obtaining the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion under Article 143 would be prudent.
Further, the court urged states to engage in pre-legislation consultations with the Centre, ensuring smoother legislative processes and reducing tensions arising from potential constitutional conflicts.
