Supreme Court Restores Balance In Governor-State Powers

The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench has delivered a landmark ruling on gubernatorial and presidential powers in processing state legislation.

The five-judge bench, led by then Chief Justice Gavai, issued the verdict on November 20, reshaping the debate on constitutional timelines, discretion and federal balance.

The judgment overturns the April 8 ruling of a two-judge bench that imposed strict deadlines for governors and introduced the concept of ‘deemed assent.’

The Constitution Bench held that such externally crafted timelines violated the Constitution’s text, structure and separation of powers.

The bench emphasised that Articles 200 and 201 grant governors and the President a constitutionally anchored discretion.

Imposing judicial deadlines, it said, would amount to rewriting the Constitution.

While governors ordinarily act on cabinet advice, the court noted that Article 200 expressly provides space for independent discretion.

This discretion is limited but cannot be reduced to a procedural formality.

The court reaffirmed that governors have three constitutionally valid choices when presented with a Bill: grant assent, return it for reconsideration with comments, or reserve it for the President.

Even after the legislature reenacts a Bill, the governor may either assent to or reserve it.

The belief that reconsideration eliminates options, the court said, has no constitutional basis.

At the same time, the bench created space for judicial intervention in one narrow situation, deliberate and prolonged inaction.

Courts cannot examine the merits of a governor’s decision. But they can direct the governor to act if a Bill is held indefinitely.

The court framed this as a minimal safeguard to prevent constitutional paralysis while preserving executive discretion.

The Bench rejected the April ruling’s one-month and three-month deadlines and found the idea of ‘deemed assent’ unconstitutional.

It said such innovations transfer executive functions to the judiciary and violate federal design.

States such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu welcomed the verdict.

They argued that their dispute was not about the governor’s discretion but about governors withholding Bills indefinitely.

The judgment supports their position that states may approach the court when a governor stalls legislation.

The ruling restores equilibrium. It rejects judicial rule-making but empowers courts to prevent constitutional deadlocks, striking a calibrated balance between federal autonomy and institutional accountability.

Also Read: National Herald Case: Court Defers Cognisance Decision To 16 December