The Supreme Court&rsquo;s Constitution Bench, led by former Chief Justice Sanjiv Gavai, delivered a landmark judgment on November 20 that reshapes the understanding of gubernatorial and presidential powers in handling state legislation. The verdict came in response to disputes raised by Kerala and Tamil Nadu over delays by their governors in processing Bills.
The ruling overturns the April 8 judgment of a two-judge bench that had prescribed strict timelines and introduced the concept of deemed assent. The larger bench held that such mandates rewrote constitutional provisions and violated the principle of separation of powers.
The court emphasised that Articles 200 and 201 grant the governor and the President constitutionally defined discretion. While these powers are not absolute, they cannot be reduced to mere formality. The bench reaffirmed that a governor has three options when a Bill is presented: granting assent, returning it with comments for reconsideration, or reserving it for the President. Even after reconsideration, the governor may either assent or reserve the Bill, narrowing interpretations that removed this choice.
On judicial review, the bench made an important distinction. Courts cannot question the merits of a governor&rsquo;s or President&rsquo;s decision, nor can they examine Bills before they become law. However, judicial intervention is permitted if a Bill is stalled through deliberate and prolonged inaction. In such cases, the court may direct the governor to act, without dictating the choice among the three constitutional options. This, the bench said, prevents constitutional paralysis without eroding constitutional design.
The judgment invalidated the earlier ruling that imposed a one-month deadline for governors and a three-month period for the President, and rejected the idea of deemed assent. Imposing fixed timelines or automatic approval, the court held, exceeded judicial authority and intruded into the executive domain.
The bench also reviewed a 2023 decision concerning the Punjab governor, where the Supreme Court insisted on immediate action under the phrase &ldquo;as soon as possible&rdquo; in Article 200. The Constitution Bench expressed reservations, stating that the phrase imposes an expectation of reasonable promptness but does not create a judicially enforceable deadline.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu welcomed the new verdict, noting that it strengthens federal accountability by safeguarding against governors indefinitely withholding Bills. Both states argued that their challenge was not to the governor&rsquo;s discretion but to the prolonged withholding of legislation without communication. The judgment recognises this concern: while rejecting fixed timelines, it allows states to approach the Supreme Court if a governor&rsquo;s inaction obstructs democratic functioning.
Overall, the ruling attempts to strike a constitutional balance affirming executive discretion, rejecting judicial overreach, and preserving the Supreme Court&rsquo;s role in preventing a governance deadlock.
[Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by the Benefit News editorial team and is published directly from the IANS news feed.]
&nbsp;

SC clarifies gubernatorial discretion, rejects timelines, averts constitutional deadlock

The Third Eye: SC Ruling on Governor Powers

SC clarifies gubernatorial discretion, rejects timelines, averts constitutional deadlock

November 30, 2025 | 12:17 IST