Supreme Court on Governors’ Assent Powers: April Verdict and Later Reconsideration

Article 200, Gubernatorial Discretion and the Federal Balance Debate

In April 2025 , the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu , addressing the long-standing issue of Governors indefinitely withholding assent to Bills passed by State legislatures. The ruling was widely viewed as an effort to protect legislative functioning and restore balance within India’s federal framework.

April 2025 Verdict and Its Impact
The Court acknowledged that prolonged silence by Governors on State Bills leads to administrative paralysis and undermines democratic mandates. To address this, it prescribed reasonable timelines for gubernatorial action and allowed courts to treat unexplained inaction as deemed assent . Several Opposition-ruled States welcomed the decision, seeing it as a safeguard against the use of constitutional offices to delay or block State policies.

Presidential Reference and Judicial Reversal
Soon after, the constitutional position was revisited when the Supreme Court responded to a Presidential Reference (Special Reference No. 1 of 2025) . A Constitution Bench held that judicially fixed timelines and the doctrine of deemed assent lack explicit constitutional sanction . The Court emphasised that Articles governing assent intentionally provide discretionary space to Governors and the President, even if such discretion results in delay. This advisory opinion effectively diluted the operational impact of the April judgment.

Article 200 and the Idea of Constitutional Dialogue
In the Reference opinion, the Court described Article 200 as facilitating a “constitutional dialogue” between Governors and State legislatures. Critics argue that dialogue loses meaning if responses are delayed indefinitely. The April ruling had attempted to correct this asymmetry by limiting silence, a protection now weakened by the later interpretation.

Implications for Federalism
The Reference judgment allows Governors to reserve even reconsidered Bills for Presidential assent, reducing the binding effect of legislative reiteration. While framed as reinforcing checks and balances, critics see it as reviving central leverage over States and weakening cooperative federalism .

Exam-Focused Points

• Article 200 governs the Governor’s 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.

• Presidential references are advisory , but carry strong persuasive value.