SC Verdict on Governors' Powers over State Bills

• 08 Apr 2025

For Prelims: Supreme Court of India, Governor, Article 200, President, President's Rule 

For Mains: Role of Governors in Indian Federalism, Judicial Review of Governor’s Actions, Balance of Power 

Source:IE 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court (SC) of India, in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, clarified that Governors  must act on state bills in a time-bound manner, following the aid and advice of the council of ministers, as per Article 200, without independent discretion. 

What is the SC’s Verdict on Governors’ Role in State Bills? 

• Case Background: The Tamil Nadu Governor withheld assent to 10 Bills, delaying action under Article 200. The state government challenged this, citing constitutional violations and governance disruption. 
  • After the Governor withheld assent, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly re-enacted the Bills and sent them back. Instead of granting assent or returning them with comments, the Governor referred them to the President. 
• SC’s Verdict: SC termed the Tamil Nadu Governor’s referral of re-enacted Bills to the President as “erroneous in law.”  
  • The Court ruled that there is no concept of "absolute veto" or "pocket veto" under Article 200 and stated that governors cannot indefinitely delay action on bills. 
    • SC noted that Governors are bound to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers. 
  • SC ruled that Governor must give assent to a bill when a bill is presented to him after re consultation in state assembly and he can only refuse assent when the bill is different. 
    • The SC prescribed clear timelines for Governors when dealing with Bills with one month to withhold assent, three months if doing against State Cabinet advice, and one month for Bills re-presented after reconsideration. 
• Implications: The Supreme Court ruling curbs the misuse of gubernatorial discretion to stall state legislatures, reaffirming that Governors are constitutional heads, not political actors.  
  • It emphasizes the primacy of the legislative process and limits executive overreach.  
  • The judgment sets a precedent for similar cases in states like Kerala, West Bengal, Telangana, and Punjab, where Governors have delayed assent to Bills. 

What are the Constitutional Powers of a Governor with Respect To Bills? 

• Article 200: The Governor has significant powers when dealing with Bills passed by the State Legislature. Upon receiving a Bill, the Governor can take one of the following actions: 
  • Grant Assent: The Governor may approve the Bill, allowing it to become law. 
  • Withhold Assent: The Governor has the authority to refuse assent to the Bill. 
  • Return for Reconsideration: The Governor may send the Bill back to the State Legislature for further review and reconsideration. 
  • Reserve for the President’s Consideration: In certain cases, the Governor can reserve the Bill for the President’s approval, especially if the Bill concerns matters of national importance or conflicts with central laws. 
• Article 201: If the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's consideration, the President holds the final say on the matter. The President has the option to: 
  • Grant Assent: The President can approve the Bill, making it law. 
  • Withhold Assent: The President may choose to withhold assent to the Bill.  
    • For non-Money Bills, if the President withholds assent, the President can direct the Governor to send the Bill back to the Legislature for reconsideration.  
    • The Legislature is required to act within six months. If the Bill is passed again, it must be resubmitted to the President for final approval. 
• Article 207: No Money Bill can be introduced in the assembly without the recommendation of the Governor of the State.

Note: The SC in Rameshwar Prasad case (2006) ruled that the Governor’s powers to withhold assent can be reviewed if exercised arbitrarily. 

What are the Key Concerns Related to Governors in India? 

• Impartiality Concerns: Governors are sometimes seen as acting as agents of the Centre's ruling party, raising concerns about their impartiality and fairness in exercising powers. 
  • For instance, in 2016, the Governor's actions in Arunachal Pradesh led to the dismissal of the elected government, a move later overturned by the Supreme Court, which reinstated the government. 
• Questionable Use of Article 356: Governors have sometimes recommended President's Rule without a floor test, perceived as politically motivated.  
  • For example, in Uttarakhand (2016), the Governor recommended President's Rule just before a floor test, indicating potential political motivations. 
• Overreach in State Matters:  Governors have increasingly overreached in administrative matters, bypassing elected state governments and causing governance paralysis.  
  • In Delhi (2023), clashes between the Lieutenant Governor and the state government over bureaucratic appointments led the Supreme Court to rule that the elected government controls services.  
  • Governors, as Chancellors of state universities, also interfere in Vice-Chancellor appointments, often leading to legal battles, as seen in West Bengal (2023), where the Governor's unilateral appointments sparked a standoff with the state government. 
• Lack of Accountability: Governors are only accountable to the President and can be removed at the Union government's discretion.  
  • With no impeachment provisions, they can act without facing direct consequences, undermining accountability despite holding significant powers.

What are the Key Committees and their Recommendations Related to the Governor?

Committee	Recommendation
Sarkaria Commission (1988)	Governors should not have statutory powers unrelated to their constitutional role.  Governors should be appointed after consulting the Chief Minister.  Governors should not have recent political affiliations.  Governors’ role in university governance should be limited, with states having a greater say.
Punchhi Commission (2010)	Governors should act on Bills within a fixed timeframe (six-month limit for reserved Bills).  Stricter safeguards against the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule).
Venkatachaliah Commission (2002)	Suggested that the appointment of Governors should be handled by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Minister of the relevant state.

What Measures can be Adopted to Address Governor-State Disputes? 

• Impeachment Process for Governors: Currently, Governors can only be removed by the President, leading to a lack of state-level accountability.  
  • The Punchhi Commission proposed an impeachment process at the state level to enhance accountability.  
  • The Supreme Court’s ruling in BP Singhal vs Union of India (2010) emphasized that any removal must be for a valid reason, ensuring fairness. 
• Amendment to Article 163: It grants Governors discretionary powers, which can lead to political bias.  
  • An amendment to Article 163 could limit these powers, clarifying they should only be used in exceptional circumstances impacting national interest or constitutional integrity. 
• Review of Gubernatorial Conduct:  A periodic review mechanism by Judicial Commissions could be set up to periodically assess how Governors exercise their powers. 
  • This would ensure that their actions align with constitutional norms, limit interference with state governance, and increase transparency. 
• Clear Guidelines on Imposing President’s Rule: To prevent misuse, the Governor’s discretion in recommending President’s Rule must be exercised judiciously, backed by objective material, and remain open to judicial scrutiny, as upheld in the S.R. Bommai case (1994).  
  • The Sarkaria Commission further advised that it should be a last-resort mechanism, invoked only after all constitutional remedies are exhausted. 

Drishti Mains Question:

Analyze the challenges posed by the Governor’s office and propose reforms to ensure impartiality and greater accountability.

UPSC Civil Services Examination Previous Year’s Question (PYQs) 

Prelims

Q. Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State? (2014)

1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule 
2. Appointing the Ministers 
3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India 
4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government 

Select the correct answer using the code given below: 

(a) 1 and 2 only 
(b) 1 and 3 only 
(c) 2, 3 and 4 only 
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 

Ans: (b) 

Exp; 

• Article 163 of the Constitution says that the Governor shall exercise his functions with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except for functions which require his discretion. 
• Under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, the Governor of a State can send a report to the President of India recommending imposition of President Rule in the State. This is a discretionary power being conferred upon the Governor. Hence, 1 is correct. 
• He appoints the Chief Minister (CM) and other ministers. They also hold office during his pleasure. The appointment of ministers in the State cabinet is not at the discretion of the Governor. He only formally approves the appointment. The discretion comes under CM. Hence, 2 is not correct. 
• Governor can reserve certain bills passed by the State legislature for the consideration of the President. In one case such reservation is obligatory, that is, where the bill passed by the State legislature endangers the position of the State High Court. In addition, the 
• The governor can also reserve the bill if it is against the provisions of the Constitution, opposed to the Directive Principles of State Policy, against the larger interest of the country, of grave national importance, etc. Hence, 3 is correct. 
• He makes rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of a state government and for the allocation among the ministers of the said business. But this power is not under the Governor’s discretion. He acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Hence, 4 is not correct. 
• Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer

---

Mains

Q. Whether the Supreme Court Judgment (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt.Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine. (2018)

Q. Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature. (2022)