Supreme Court Verdict Rekindles Debate on Governors’ Assent Powers

In April 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, seeking to curb the prolonged withholding of assent by Governors to Bills passed by State legislatures. By prescribing timelines and permitting courts to deem unexplained inaction as assent, the ruling was widely seen as reinforcing legislative supremacy and federal balance.

April 2025 Judgment and Its Significance

The April verdict was hailed by Opposition-ruled States as a decisive check on what they viewed as obstructionist conduct by Governors. The Court recognised that indefinite delays in granting assent led to policy paralysis and undermined democratic governance. By enabling judicial intervention against prolonged silence, the ruling aimed to ensure that constitutional offices could not be used to stall elected legislatures.

Presidential Reference and Judicial Reconsideration

Before States could effectively operationalise the April ruling, the Supreme Court revisited the issue while answering a Presidential Reference in Special Reference No. 1 of 2025. The Constitution Bench held that judicially imposed timelines lacked explicit constitutional backing. It rejected the concept of deemed assent and emphasised the discretionary space available to Governors and the President under the Constitution, even if it resulted in delays.

Article 200 and the Question of Constitutional Dialogue

The Reference judgment framed Article 200 as enabling a constitutional dialogue between Governors and State legislatures. Critics argue that such a dialogue presupposes timely and meaningful responses, which were precisely absent in many cases. The earlier State of Tamil Nadu ruling had attempted to correct this imbalance by limiting silence and delay, a safeguard now diluted by the advisory opinion.

What to Note for Exams?

• Article 200 deals with the Governor’s power to grant assent to State Bills.
• State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) imposed timelines on Governors.
• Special Reference No. 1 of 2025 rejected deemed assent and fixed timelines.
• Advisory opinions, though not binding, carry strong persuasive value.

Implications for Federalism and Legislative Supremacy

The Reference judgment permits Governors to refer even reconsidered Bills to the President, weakening the binding nature of legislative reiteration envisaged in Article 200. While the Court invoked checks and balances, critics view the ruling as enabling renewed central dominance over States. The outcome is widely seen as a constitutional retreat from earlier restraints on gubernatorial power and a setback for cooperative federalism.