HomeNewsOpinionOPINION | The perennial debate over the role of a governor

OPINION | The perennial debate over the role of a governor

Supreme Court’s recent verdict which removed timelines for a governor to clear Bills passed by state assemblies showcased the controversial role of the office from the very beginning

November 27, 2025 / 16:41 IST
Story continues below Advertisement
OPINION | The perennial debate over the role of a governor
The Court held that the Governor cannot withhold assent to a Bill indefinitely

In its recently delivered judgment on the Presidential Reference concerning the role and powers of Governors—particularly in relation to Bills passed by State Legislatures and the question of whether a time limit can be prescribed for the President to decide on Bills reserved for consideration—the Supreme Court declined to impose any such time limit. However, the Court took the opportunity to clarify the contours of the Governor’s authority and responsibilities within the constitutional framework.

A governor has three options when a state assembly passes a Bill

Story continues below Advertisement

Two key points from the judgment, relevant to the Governor’s powers while dealing with Bills passed by the State Legislature, deserve emphasis. First, the Court held that the Governor is not necessarily bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising functions under Article 200. The judgment states: “The Governor has three constitutional options before him, under Article 200, namely - to assent, reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President, or withhold assent and return the Bill to the Legislature with comments.

Pertinently, the third option - to withhold assent and return with comments - is only available to the Governor when it is not a Money Bill. The Governor enjoys discretion in choosing from these three constitutional options and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, while exercising his function under Article 200.”