Supreme Court Defines Limits on Presidential and Governor Powers Over State Bills

In a crucial pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, clarified that the actions of the President and Governors in dealing with bills passed by legislatures are not subject to judicial review until the bills are enacted into law. The ruling came as a response to a Presidential reference seeking clarity on the court’s April verdict concerning the powers of Governors, particularly in light of a controversy involving the Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi.

The court emphasized that while it retains the right to ensure constitutional compliance, the functions performed by a Governor or the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution fall within the discretionary ambit of their roles. This discretion, the bench noted, is not open to routine judicial interference. However, the court allowed that it may issue limited directions if there is prolonged or unexplained delay in action, underscoring a balance between accountability and constitutional autonomy.

In its detailed observations, the bench stated that Governors are not bound by specific timelines to clear or return bills. Yet, if a bill is withheld, it must be returned to the state legislature for reconsideration. The court rejected the argument of "deemed assent"—a concept that would treat delayed assent as automatically granted—stating that the Constitution provides no such mechanism. Crucially, the bench reaffirmed that a Governor, while exercising powers under Article 200, acts with a degree of discretion not necessarily dictated by the Council of Ministers’ advice.

Also Read: Saudi Bus Crash: Andhra Governor Leads Delegation to Assist Victims' Families

Addressing the scope of Presidential powers, the court clarified that the President, under Article 201, also enjoys immunity from judicially imposed timelines when granting or withholding assent. This means that decisions made by the President in such matters cannot be challenged until the legislative process culminates in an enacted law. The court reiterated that its role in this context is purely advisory and does not extend to mandating executive action.

The ruling marks a significant moment in India’s constitutional discourse. It redefines the dynamic between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, especially in light of growing political tensions between state governments and Governors. By reinforcing the principle of non-justiciability before a bill becomes law, the Supreme Court has underlined constitutional boundaries while leaving the door open for intervention in cases of undue delay or constitutional impropriety.

Also Read: West Bengal Governor Orders Raj Bhavan Search After TMC MP’s Serious Arms Allegation