India’s top court limits powers of president, governor over state bills

Supreme Court curtails ‘veto’ powers in landmark verdict

THE WORLDVIEW

April 15, 2025

IN a first, the Supreme Court of India has imposed a clear deadline on the president and state governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures. The judgment curtails the longstanding discretionary powers often used to delay or block legislation without explanation.

The decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for Centre-state relations and the balance of power within India’s federal structure. However, the Centre is preparing to file a review petition against the ruling, according to sources.  

Delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, the Supreme Court has set a three-month deadline for the president to act on bills referred by governors. This ruling significantly weakens the president’s previously unchecked authority to exercise an “absolute veto”.

The decision establishes firm constitutional guidelines for governors, clarifying that they cannot indefinitely delay or withhold assent to bills passed by elected state legislatures. The court held that if a governor chooses to withhold assent, they must return the bill with written reasons. Once the legislature re-passes the bill — regardless of whether the governor’s recommendations are incorporated — the governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent and cannot refer it to the president.

Background of the case

The case arose from a 2023 petition by the Tamil Nadu government, which accused Governor R.N. Ravi of obstructing the legislative process by sitting on 12 bills — some pending since 2020 — without action or explanation. The standoff prompted the state to approach the Supreme Court.

Following notice from the court, the governor finally acted in November 2023. He withheld assent for ten bills without citing specific reasons and forwarded the remaining two to the president. In response, the Tamil Nadu Assembly reconvened in a special session and re-passed the ten bills without amendments. 

According to Article 200 of the Constitution, once a bill is passed again, the governor “shall not withhold assent”. However, Ravi defied this by again reserving the re-passed bills for presidential consideration, citing alleged conflicts with national laws — an action that became the central legal question in the case.

What the constitution says

Under Article 200, a governor has three options upon receiving a bill:

-           Grant assent, making it law;

-           Withhold assent;

-           Reserve the bill for the president.

While the first two actions are immediate, the third introduces a central layer of review. Disputes usually arise over the second option — particularly whether a governor can withhold assent indefinitely (a “pocket veto”) or do so without explanation (an “absolute veto”).

The constitution also provides that if the legislature re-passes a bill after the governor returns it, the governor must grant assent. The instant judgment reinforces this mandatory provision and establishes that reserving the bill for the president after re-passage is not constitutionally permissible.

The court’s ruling addressed several key questions, including:

-           Can a governor delay action indefinitely?

-           Must reasons be provided for withholding assent?

-           Can a governor override a re-passed bill by referring it to the president?

-           Are the governor’s legislative actions subject to judicial review?

-           Should there be a time limit for executive action on bills?

By answering these questions, the Supreme Court has drawn a constitutional line: unelected governors cannot act as legislative gatekeepers against the will of elected state governments.