Introduction

The constitutional role of the Governor in India, particularly regarding the grant of assent to state legislation under Article 200, has long been a subject of legal and political scrutiny. This debate has been reignited by recent Supreme Court decisions in State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023) and The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (2025). In these rulings, the apex court addressed the persistent deadlock surrounding gubernatorial inaction by setting a three-month deadline for Governors and the President to act on state Bills. While the decision seeks to restore constitutional balance, it also raises concerns about the separation of powers and potential judicial overreach.

Understanding Article 200 within the Constitutional Framework

·       Article 200 of the Constitution lays out four possible courses of action when a Bill is passed by a State Legislature: the Governor may grant assent, withhold assent, return the Bill for reconsideration (if it is not a Money Bill), or reserve it for the President’s consideration. On the surface, these options appear to grant the Governor significant discretionary authority.

·       However, this apparent power is tempered by Article 163, which mandates that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in situations explicitly provided for in the Constitution. This provision affirms the status of the Governor as a constitutional head rather than an autonomous executive, reflecting the broader framework of a parliamentary democracy.

Discretionary Powers: Constitutional Intent vs. Judicial Interpretation

·       The critical issue at the heart of the debate is whether the Governor possesses discretionary power under Article 200. Historical context is instructive here. The Government of India Act, 1935, which inspired many provisions in the Constitution, included a similar clause (Section 75), explicitly using the phrase “in his discretion.” However, the absence of this phrase in Article 200 clearly indicates the Constituent Assembly’s intent to exclude discretion from the Governor’s decision-making in this domain.

·       Judicial interpretations over the years have largely upheld this reading. In Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), the Supreme Court acknowledged only a narrow space for discretion. This position was reinforced in Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker (2016), where the Court ruled that the Governor is generally bound by the advice of the elected government. Most recently, in the 2025 Tamil Nadu judgment, the Court firmly rejected any suggestion of independent discretion, warning that such a stance would elevate the Governor to a “super-constitutional authority,” thereby paralyzing the legislative process. While expert bodies like the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions have admitted the possibility of rare exceptions (such as when a Bill is manifestly unconstitutional), the prevailing constitutional doctrine remains that the Governor is subordinate to the democratic mandate.

The Issue of Delays and the Judiciary’s Corrective Action

·       A central problem that has plagued state legislatures is the unjustified and prolonged delay by Governors in processing Bills. Several states have faced situations where Bills were neither signed, returned, nor reserved — some pending for years without action. Such inaction not only frustrates the legislative process but also amounts to a de facto veto, undermining the representative will of the people.

·       Notably, the Constitution does not provide any timeline for the Governor or the President to act under Articles 200 and 201. Confronted with this constitutional vacuum, the Supreme Court stepped in and prescribed a three-month deadline. Critics, including some in the media and the Union Government, have decried this move as an instance of judicial law-making. Nevertheless, the Court justified its ruling on the grounds that allowing inordinate delays would erode the foundational principles of federalism and parliamentary democracy. In its view, intervention was essential to preserve constitutional morality and ensure that constitutional posts are not misused for political obstruction.

The Union Government’s Role under Article 355

·       An emerging question in light of these rulings is whether the Union Government can step in when a Governor refuses or delays action on a Bill. Article 355 of the Constitution places a duty on the Union to ensure that state governments operate in accordance with constitutional norms.

·       A creative interpretation of this Article could allow the Centre to instruct the Governor to discharge their constitutional duties in a timely manner. However, in practice, the Union has not invoked this authority, leaving the field open for judicial intervention as the only mechanism to ensure the functioning of state legislatures.

Constitutional and Democratic Significance of Recent Judgements

• These recent Supreme Court verdicts mark a dynamic evolution of constitutional interpretation. Detractors argue that by prescribing timelines, the Court has strayed into the domain of legislative or constitutional amendment. However, the Indian judiciary has long employed constructive interpretation to fill constitutional gaps. A prominent example is the Maneka Gandhi case (1978), where the Court expanded the meaning of Article 21 to include substantive due process, even though the Constitution did not explicitly provide for it.
• Seen in this light, the three-month timeline does not constitute overreach, but rather a judicial safeguard intended to uphold the democratic functioning of state legislatures. The greater concern lies in the repeated failure of political and constitutional actors to act within the boundaries of their roles, necessitating the Court''s corrective role.

Conclusion

·       The enduring debate over Article 200 highlights the friction between constitutional ideals and political realities. The deliberate omission of discretion from the Governor’s powers underlines the framers’ vision of a subordinate, ceremonial role for the Governor, acting on the advice of an elected executive.

·       However, political misuse and willful inaction have often transformed this ceremonial position into an obstructive force. It is within this context that the Supreme Court’s interventions must be understood—not as judicial overreach, but as constitutional course correction. By clarifying the absence of discretionary powers and introducing a time-bound framework, the Court has reinforced the principles of parliamentary democracy, cooperative federalism, and constitutional accountability.

·       Ultimately, the judiciary’s action serves as a necessary nudge to restore balance among institutions and ensure that no constitutional functionary is allowed to undermine the democratic process through inertia or abuse of office.