Can Governors Indefinitely Stall Legislation? Supreme Court Examines Need for Timelines

A Bench Questions Governor’s Power to Stall Legislation

The Supreme Court’s Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, concluded arguments this week in a landmark Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution. The question before the court is whether Governors have a fixed timeframe within which they must decide whether to grant assent to a bill passed by the state legislature—or whether they may delay assent indefinitely without judicial interference.

During the proceedings, the bench repeatedly asked, “Should courts sit idle when a Governor willfully delays assent?”—a pointed inquiry that signals judicial frustration with the current state of affairs. The issue arises from concerns that gubernatorial inaction is being used to stall legislatures, thereby undermining democratic governance. A decision is expected soon, and it is likely to have far-reaching consequences for the separation of powers between state governments and constitutional functionaries like Governors.

This Presidential Reference, sought by the President of India, invites the Supreme Court to resolve uncertainty that has persisted for decades. The ruling may clarify whether Governors must act within a reasonable time frame, whether delay can be construed as inaction subject to judicial review, and whether legislatures have recourse when their legislative will is thwarted.

Why the Question of Timelines Matters Now

At the heart of the matter is the growing unease over Governors’ discretionary powers. Governors, appointed by the President on the advice of the central government, are constitutionally tasked with assenting to bills passed by state legislatures. However, several recent instances across states have seen Governors sit on bills—sometimes for months or years—without either assenting or returning them for reconsideration. These delays have often coincided with political friction between the state government and the Union government.

A legislative process that hinges on gubernatorial assent becomes vulnerable when no clear procedural obligation binds the Governor to act within a specific period. This raises concerns that Governors may be weaponized to paralyze state legislatures, creating a bottleneck that frustrates governance and legislative accountability.

The question now is not whether Governors possess discretion—they do—but how much discretion is permissible, and whether courts can intervene when that discretion is exercised in a way that undermines legislative functioning.

Article 143: A Rare but Powerful Tool

The Presidential Reference under Article 143 allows the Supreme Court to provide advisory opinions on questions of law or fact referred by the President. These opinions, while not binding in the strict sense, carry persuasive authority and often guide legislative and constitutional practice.

The reference here seeks clarity on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which outline the Governor’s role in assenting to, reserving, or returning bills for reconsideration. While these provisions outline procedural possibilities, they do not explicitly impose a deadline for action. This ambiguity has allowed room for political exploitation.

The Supreme Court’s willingness to entertain this matter reflects its recognition that constitutional silence cannot be a cover for paralysis. If left unchecked, the absence of time-bound obligations may erode legislative autonomy and accountability.

How Past Precedents Shape the Debate

The Court’s deliberations are occurring against the backdrop of earlier judgments that attempted, in varying degrees, to limit gubernatorial discretion. In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), the Court underscored that constitutional offices cannot be used as tools for political ends. Similarly, Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) examined the role of Governors in calling assembly sessions and held that their powers are subject to constitutional limits.

Yet, there remains no definitive ruling on how long a Governor can withhold assent or how courts can intervene. The lack of explicit statutory or constitutional guidance has created a vacuum where political practice fills the void. The current Presidential Reference is poised to either formalize limits or reaffirm discretionary space within constitutional bounds.

What Could the Court Decide?

From the arguments heard, several possible outcomes may emerge:

1. Imposition of a Reasonable Timeframe:The Court may hold that Governors must act within a “reasonable period”—neither defined strictly by days nor left open-ended. This approach would strike a balance, preserving discretion while discouraging misuse.

2. Grounds for Judicial Review:The bench may decide that unreasonable delay is subject to judicial scrutiny, especially where it leads to legislative stagnation or violates democratic principles. This would empower courts to review gubernatorial conduct without micromanaging governance.

3. Reaffirmation of Governor’s Discretion:The Court may decide that as long as the Governor acts in good faith, courts should avoid interfering with their role. Such an outcome would preserve the status quo but likely invite further debate and possibly legislative reform.

4. Guidelines Rather Than Rules:A nuanced judgment may set out principles rather than rigid timelines, urging Governors to respect legislative mandates while acknowledging the need for constitutional decorum.

Democratic Governance at Stake

The implications of this ruling are not merely technical—they strike at the core of federal governance in India. Several states have seen friction between elected governments and centrally appointed Governors, particularly in politically sensitive regions. If the Court establishes that delay itself can be unconstitutional, it will send a clear message that constitutional offices cannot be leveraged to stall democratic processes.

For legislators and political actors, the ruling may reduce reliance on gubernatorial roadblocks and compel governments to seek transparent avenues for legislative action. Conversely, if the Court grants broad discretion, it may embolden Governors to act at the discretion of partisan considerations, deepening constitutional crises in politically divided states.

Lessons from International Practice

A comparative lens shows that many federal democracies impose procedural checks on executive assent. For example, in countries like Australia and Canada, gubernatorial or vice-regal assent is largely ceremonial and bound by convention to occur within a reasonable time frame. India’s Constitution, while modeled on Westminster principles, lacks such conventions being enforceable through judicial orders.

This case presents an opportunity for India to define its own standards for executive-legislative relations, ensuring that federal structures remain resilient against politicization.

Implications for Lawmakers and Practitioners

If the Court issues binding guidelines or interpretative principles, several sectors will be impacted:

• Legislators: Bills can no longer be stalled indefinitely, ensuring smoother legislative workflows.

• Governors’ Offices: Political neutrality and constitutional accountability may be enforced with renewed vigor.

• Litigants: Courts may become accessible for urgent relief against unreasonable delays, especially in matters involving public policy.

• Political Parties: Strategies involving procedural roadblocks may be curtailed, forcing substantive debates on policy rather than tactics.

• Legal Academia: The judgment may redefine discussions around separation of powers and constitutional morality.

What’s Next?

The Court is expected to reserve judgment after hearing final arguments. Legal experts anticipate that the bench may frame a carefully balanced ruling that preserves constitutional discretion while preventing abuse. A pronouncement favoring accountability would mark a significant step toward insulating state legislatures from politically motivated obstruction.

As this matter unfolds, it will be crucial for states, legislatures, and civil society to prepare for a constitutional shift that recalibrates how governance is practiced in India’s federal framework.