New Delhi, November 22, 2025 – Opposition-ruled states across India expressed dismay and resolve on Saturday following the Supreme Court's advisory opinion that shields governors from fixed timelines on bill assents, leaving legislatures vulnerable to prolonged executive foot-dragging and reigniting fears of central interference in federal affairs.
The unanimous ruling by a Constitution Bench, delivered on November 20 in response to President Droupadi Murmu's July reference under Article 143, underscores the judiciary's deference to separation of powers but offers scant relief to states battling gubernatorial stonewalling. With over 50 bills languishing in Raj Bhavans from Kerala to Punjab, chief ministers warned that the verdict could paralyze state governance, prompting vows to push constitutional amendments for mandatory deadlines.
### From Tamil Nadu Trigger to National Reckoning
The reference emerged from a cascade of Centre-state clashes, crystallized by the Supreme Court's April 2025 reprimand of Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for delaying assent to 10 bills for years—a saga dubbed the "pocket veto" controversy. In that order, the Court invoked Article 142 to deem prolonged inaction as assent and set provisional timelines: one week for initial bills, three months for reconsidered ones, and six months for presidential referrals.
President Murmu's 14-question referral sought clarity on the justiciability of gubernatorial decisions under Articles 200 (governor's assent powers) and 201 (president's role), the binding force of ministerial advice, and whether courts could legislate deadlines. Hearings drew fire from state attorneys, who argued that unchecked discretion turns governors—appointed by the Centre—into veto-wielding proxies in non-BJP states.
### Bench's Balancing Act: No Clocks, But a Gentle Nudge
Authored by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai in a 111-page opinion, the Bench affirmed the reference's validity as a quest for "constitutional clarity" rather than political maneuvering. Pivotal findings include:
Discretionary Leeway: Under Article 200, governors wield three options—assent, withhold and return for reconsideration, or reserve for the President—even for repassed bills. This discretion, the Court held, is not wholly shackled by Council of Ministers' advice, serving as a "safety valve" for federal harmony.
Timelines Off the Table: Rejecting judicially mandated deadlines, the opinion deems Articles 200 and 201 timeline-free, save for an implicit "as soon as possible" for returns and a six-month presidential window. Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission guidelines, while advisory for reasonableness, cannot supplant constitutional text.
Judicial Guardrails: Core decisions remain non-justiciable to honor separation of powers, but "inordinate delays" trigger limited court intervention—a writ of mandamus urging prompt action, sans merits review. Deemed assent was struck down as an Article 142 overreach, with the Tamil Nadu timelines labeled prospective only.
The Court positioned governors as "sentinels of the Constitution," not automatons, yet critics contend this elevates unelected figures over elected assemblies.
### States' Fury: 'A Licence for Paralysis'
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, whose DMK government spearheaded the original challenge, decried the ruling as a "setback to cooperative federalism" but vowed unrelenting advocacy. "We won't rest till the Constitution is amended to fix timelines for governors," Stalin declared on X, noting the opinion's prospective application preserves his state's April gains but leaves future bills in limbo. Kerala's 18 stalled bills, including those on university reforms, now face renewed uncertainty, with Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan calling it "a blow to states' rights."
In Punjab and West Bengal, chief ministers Bhagwant Mann and Mamata Banerjee echoed the sentiment, labeling the verdict a "green signal for Raj Bhavan overreach" amid accusations of partisan delays since 2014. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh urged an all-party parliamentary panel to overhaul gubernatorial roles, arguing the decision "reaffirms separation of powers at the expense of democratic accountability."
Legal scholars amplified the chorus. In an editorial, *The Hindu* termed it a "blow to states," faulting the Bench for ignoring Article 200's textual cues and 75 years of precedent like *Shamsher Singh* (1974), which binds executives to ministerial counsel. "By prioritizing restraint, the Court empowers governors to delay indefinitely under the guise of discretion," wrote commentator V. Sudhish Pai, warning of "constitutional sabotage" in an era of polarized politics.
### Federal Fault Lines Deepen
As the 2026 assembly elections approach, the opinion—advisory yet influential—could fuel intergovernmental strife, with states eyeing legislative overrides or fresh petitions for "inordinate delay" mandamuses. Proponents, including the Attorney General's office, praised it as a "judicious recalibration" averting judicial encroachment.
Yet, with no clear yardstick for "prolonged" inaction, governors retain the upper hand, potentially stalling reforms on everything from liquor policy to vice-chancellor appointments. As one analyst quipped, "The clock is away, but the delays are here to stay." The battle for federal equilibrium now shifts to Parliament, where amending Articles 200 and 201 could finally synchronize the constitutional gears.
For More News Updates Follow Us On Www.tconews.in
