Supreme Court Limits Governor's Veto Powers: A Detailed Analysis (2024-25)

Q: What was the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the Governor's veto powers?

The Supreme Court's 2025 decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu curtailed the discretionary powers of Governors, stressing the requirement for them to act on bills passed by state legislatures within a reasonable time. The Court made it clear that Governors do not have an "absolute veto" and must operate on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific constitutional situations.

Supreme Court Limits Governor’s Veto Powers: A Detailed Analysis

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Indian Constitution provides a well-defined framework for the functioning of both the Union and State governments. One of the pivotal constitutional roles is that of the Governor, who functions as the ceremonial head of a state and acts as a crucial intermediary between the Centre and the state governments. However, the role of Governors in recent years has come under scrutiny for their perceived misuse of constitutional powers, particularly in the context of withholding assent to bills passed by state legislatures. The recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, delivered in 2025, limiting the veto powers of Governors marks a significant development in India’s federal and constitutional framework.

Historical Context of the Governor’s Role

The post of Governor in India is modeled after the British colonial system but was adapted to suit a democratic and federal republic post-independence. Originally intended to be an apolitical figure, the Governor’s role is defined in Part VI of the Indian Constitution, primarily through Articles 153 to 162 and Articles 163 to 167.

The controversy over the discretionary powers of Governors has been ongoing for decades. In the 1950s and 60s, Governors largely played ceremonial roles. However, political shifts from the 1970s onward, with different parties ruling at the Centre and the states, led to increased politicization of the office.

Several commissions have highlighted these issues:

Sarkaria Commission (1983): Recommended that the Governor should act strictly on the advice of the Council of Ministers and refrain from arbitrariness.
Punchhi Commission (2007): Suggested a time limit for the Governor to act on bills to avoid legislative paralysis.
Administrative Reforms Commission: Advocated clearer limitations on the Governor’s discretion to preserve democratic functioning.

Despite these recommendations, the central government never codified such limitations into law, allowing the Governor’s discretionary powers to be exercised ambiguously.

Constitutional Provisions: Article 200 and Article 201

“Article 200 of the Constitution prescribes the constitutional procedure a Governor must follow upon receiving a bill passed by the State Legislature.”

Assent to the bill
Withhold assent
Return the bill for reconsideration (if not a money bill)
Submit the bill to the President for consideration.

Article 201 allows the President to assent, withhold, or return the bill if it is reserved.

“It is significant to observe that the Constitution does not prescribe a specific time limit within which a Governor must exercise their powers.” This omission has led to Governors delaying action on important legislation, effectively stalling the legislative process and undermining the authority of elected state governments.

Tamil Nadu Case: Trigger for Judicial Review

In recent years, several bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, particularly those relating to state education policy and administrative reforms, were kept pending by the Governor. Some of these bills included:

Exemption from NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test)
Amendments to university governance
Repeal of certain central laws’ applicability to the state

The Tamil Nadu government accused the Governor of acting with political bias, deliberately delaying bills passed by the elected assembly. Frustrated by the inaction, the state moved the Supreme Court seeking clarity on the Governor’s obligations under Article 200.

Legal Precedents and Developments

The Indian judiciary has previously attempted to curtail arbitrary gubernatorial actions. Key judgments include:

Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): Held that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in matters where the Constitution gives discretionary powers.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): Clarified that the Governor does not enjoy unfettered discretion and must operate within constitutional boundaries.

However, no judgment specifically dealt with the issue of delay in assenting to bills, leaving a legal vacuum.

The Supreme Court’s 2025 Verdict: Key Highlights

“In its 2025 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court examined the following matters:-

Whether a Governor can withhold assent to a bill indefinitely.
Whether the Governor is constitutionally obliged to act within a reasonable time.
Whether the Governor’s inaction constitutes a constitutional failure.

Court’s Findings:

Time-bound Action: The Court ruled that Governors must act on bills within a “reasonable time.” Although it refrained from specifying an exact timeframe, it noted that excessive delays (e.g., over a year) violate constitutional principles.
No Absolute Veto: The judgment emphasized that Governors are not sovereign authorities. They do not possess an “absolute veto” and cannot simply sit on bills to render them ineffective.
Aid and Advice: Reaffirming Article 163, the Court ruled that Governors must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in exceptional cases.
Federalism and Democracy: The Court strongly reiterated that India’s democracy is based on elected representatives, and unelected functionaries like Governors cannot subvert this mandate.
Judicial Review of Inaction: Importantly, the Court held that the Governor’s inaction can be subjected to judicial review, marking a significant departure from previous judicial restraint.

Implications of the Verdict

Strengthening Legislative Supremacy: By ensuring time-bound gubernatorial action, the verdict restores the primacy of state legislatures in law-making.
Reaffirming Federal Principles: It upholds the federal character of the Constitution, discouraging central interference via Governors.
Curtailing Political Misuse: The verdict reduces the scope for politically motivated delays in the legislative process.
Encouraging Constitutional Morality: The judgment encourages holders of constitutional offices to act in good faith and uphold democratic norms.
Potential for Legislative Reform: The verdict may pave the way for an amendment to Article 200 to introduce statutory time limits.

Critiques and Challenges

While the judgment has been lauded, it also raises certain concerns:

Ambiguity of “Reasonable Time”: The lack of a fixed time limit leaves room for subjective interpretation and continued disputes.
Judicial Activism?: Some critics argue that the judiciary may be encroaching into the legislative-executive domain.
Implementation Issues: Ensuring compliance with the judgment in practice remains a challenge, especially in politically polarized states.

Comparative Perspective: Governors in Other Democracies

In most federal democracies:

Australia: Governors General act only on ministerial advice.
Canada: Lieutenant Governors have ceremonial roles, with no legislative veto.
USA: State Governors have veto power but must act within prescribed timeframes (usually 5-10 days).

India’s system has thus far lacked such statutory precision, making the 2025 verdict a step toward global norms.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment, which curtails the Governor’s veto powers, marks a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional law. By curbing the discretionary misuse of Article 200, the Court has reinforced legislative autonomy, constitutional morality, and federal integrity. While challenges remain in implementation and interpretation, the judgment sets a clear precedent against authoritarian tendencies in state governance. It also invites Parliament and constitutional bodies to codify clear timelines and duties, thus fulfilling the long-standing recommendations of expert commissions.

In sum, the verdict reaffirms that in a democratic republic, sovereignty lies with the people and their elected representatives—not in unelected figures wielding undefined powers. This is a victory for federalism, constitutional propriety, and the spirit of democratic accountability.

What was the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the Governor’s veto powers?

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu curtailed the discretionary powers of Governors, stressing the requirement for them to act on bills passed by state legislatures within a reasonable time. The Court made it clear that Governors do not have an “absolute veto” and must operate on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific constitutional situations.

Why did the Supreme Court intervene in the Governor’s powers?

The Court intervened due to growing concerns over the delay in the assent to bills passed by state legislatures, particularly in Tamil Nadu. The inaction of Governors on certain important state bills led to allegations of political bias and misuse of constitutional powers. The Supreme Court clarified that Governors must act on bills within a reasonable timeframe and cannot indefinitely withhold assent.

What is the meaning of ‘reasonable time’ in this context?

The Court refrained from defining an exact period for “reasonable time.” However, it indicated that delays beyond a year would be considered excessive and could violate constitutional principles. The interpretation of “reasonable time” would depend on the circumstances, but it establishes a clear expectation of timely action.

Can Governors still withhold assent to bills?

Yes, Governors retain the power to withhold assent, but they cannot exercise this power arbitrarily or indefinitely. They may also return bills to the legislature for reconsideration (except in cases of money bills) or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration if necessary.