Governor's Veto Power? SC Rejects Deadlines, Overturns April Verdict

The five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on November 20, 2025, ruled that the judiciary cannot impose fixed timelines on Governors or the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. The Bench was led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai where they overturned an April 2025 ruling that had set strict one-to-three-month deadlines and while the Court held that "deemed assent" is alien to the Constitution, it also simultaneously clarified that Governors cannot sit on bills "indefinitely," subjecting prolonged, unexplained delays to judicial review.

The Context (How We Got Here)

This conflict started in April 2025 when a two-judge Supreme Court bench ruled on the delays of Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi and imposed stringent deadlines for governor assent.

President Droupadi Murmu used Article 143(1) in May 2025 to get an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the verdict was perceived as a shield for opposition-ruled states against governors selected by the Center. This week's verdict answers that reference, dismantling the specific deadlines while attempting to preserve the spirit of timely governance.

The Key Players (Who & So What)

• Chief Justice B.R. Gavai: Head of the Constitution Bench, articulated the delicate balance, ruling that while the Governor's discretion is not time-bound by courts, the "elasticity" of the Constitution cannot be abused to paralyze elected legislatures.
• President Droupadi Murmu: Her Presidential Reference forced this review. By questioning the judiciary's power to set deadlines, her office effectively paused the implementation of the April ruling, leading to this reversal.
• Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General): Representing the Centre, he successfully argued that constitutional authorities like Governors have discretion that courts cannot commandeer via writs or deadlines.
• Opposition-Ruled States (Tamil Nadu, West Bengal) are the primary losers in this verdict as they argued that without fixed timelines, Governors are viewed as agents of the Centre and could indefinitely stall critical state legislation, effectively vetoing the people's mandate.

The BIGSTORY Reframe

While the headlines focus on the rejection of "fixed timelines," the deeper story is the creation of a "Constitutional Paradox." The Supreme Court has ruled that Governors must act "as soon as possible" but has simultaneously stripped the courts of the power to define when that is. By rejecting "deemed assent" (where a bill is considered passed if the Governor ignores it), the Court has removed the only automatic penalty for gubernatorial obstruction. This creates a governance gray zone where a Governor can delay a bill for years, forcing states to file fresh lawsuits for every single delay to prove it is "prolonged and unexplained."

The Implications (Why This Changes Things)

This judgment fundamentally alters the balance of Indian federalism. It emboldens Governors in opposition-ruled states to withhold assent without fear of immediate judicial contempt. While the Court mentioned "limited judicial review" for indefinite delays, the lack of a clear deadline is open to interpretation. We might expect a surge in litigation as states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal are forced to return to court repeatedly to define "reasonable time" on a case-by-case basis which would effectively slow down state-level legislative reforms.

The Closing Question (Now, Think About This)

If a Governor has a constitutional duty to sign bills but no deadline to do so, has the Supreme Court inadvertently legalized the "pocket veto" against elected state governments?

FAQ

What did the Supreme Court rule regarding Governors and state bills? On November 20, 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that the judiciary cannot impose fixed timelines (like 1 or 3 months) on Governors to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures, overturning a previous April 2025 judgment.

Can Governors now delay bills indefinitely? Technically, no. The Supreme Court clarified that Governors cannot sit on bills "indefinitely" and must act within a "reasonable time." However, the Court did not define what constitutes "reasonable," making enforcement difficult.

What is "deemed assent" and why was it rejected? "Deemed assent" is the idea that if a Governor does not act on a bill within a specific time, it should be considered passed. The Supreme Court rejected this concept, stating it violates the separation of powers and the specific provisions of the Constitution.

How does this affect opposition-ruled states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala? This verdict is a setback for opposition-ruled states that had approached the court to force Governors to sign pending bills. Without a fixed judicial deadline, these states may face continued delays in passing legislation if the Governor chooses to withhold assent.

What was the April 2025 judgment that was overturned? In April 2025, a two-judge bench had set a strict timeline, mandating Governors to decide on bills within one month of withholding assent. The new five-judge bench opinion on the Presidential Reference has effectively nullified that specific deadline.

Sources

News Coverage

• The Hindu – Judiciary cannot tie President, Governor to timelines, says Supreme Court
• The New Indian Express – SC says Governors cannot delay state bills indefinitely, but rejects fixed timelines
• Times of India – Presidential reference: Governors can't stall Bills, but courts can't fix timelines
• Indian Express – Courts cannot fix timeline for President, governor to act on bills

Research & Analysis

• Vision IAS – Judiciary cannot impose timelines on President and Governors
• Vajiram & Ravi – Supreme Court Clarifies Governor's Powers on State Bills
• SCC Online – Discharge of Governor & President's powers under Arts 200/201 not justiciable