Supreme Court looks at governor mandates of Articles 200 and 201

A constitutional Presidential reference has recently been filed in May 2025 in the Supreme Court of India. The reference aims to gain a clear picture on the 14 questions which are about who can wield power on the Governors and the President through Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. This is after the historic decision of the Court in May 2025 in the case State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu that provided schedules in which Governors had to take action against the State Bills and the leaders of the Government to take action to end the delays, and delays were judicially checked.

In the Background of the April 2025 Ruling, there is a background to this decision.

In its decision, the Court declared that Governors could act on Bills in a period of three months, either by assenting to the plans, refusing or leaving them in storage for the President. In the case when the Governor is obliged to assent to a Bill returned re-passing by the State legislature. Even the President has to make a decision concerning reserved Bills, within three months. To a Court verdict, any time delay exceeding these rates might be examined by any court. The Centre attacked this move and asked the Court to clarify its power to fix time frames which were not stated in the Constitution.

Constitutional Framework

Article 200 gives the Governor the prerogative to assent, not to assent, decline, or put on hold a Bill. Governors do not have much discretionary powers although they are bound essentially on the suggestions of the State Cabinet, especially where there is a constitutional dispute. The President has the power to veto sponsored Bills but Article 201 does not specify a time constraint. Such lack of deadlines has eventually resulted in political and administrative stalemates.

Past Recommendations

The Sarkaria Commission (1987) and the Punchhi Commission (2010) had also recommended that there should be timely disposal of Bills. They proposed resolutions in less than six months to honor the powers of State legislatures and still have constitutional protections.

The Debate

Typically, the Centre states that the discretion of Governors under Article 163(2) cannot be limited by the courts. States ruled by opposition make counterargument, selective delays by Governors is political interference which compromises the democracy and federalism.

The Road Ahead

Installing the meaning of shall during the Article 200 as obligatory, the Supreme Court gave a signal that Governors should abide by the order in good time. Its future ruling on the Presidential reference is likely to confirm timescale, which increases accountability and safeguards the federal balance.