Archive · 23 Dec 2025
Supreme Court Advisory on Governor's Bill Assent
The Supreme Court recently gave an opinion about how Governors in India can handle bills passed by state legislatures.
The court said that Governors can choose not to approve a bill, but they should not keep it pending indefinitely.
Some people think this opinion goes against the spirit of the Constitution, which aims for democratic accountability and cooperation between the central and state governments.
The court did not set a specific time limit for Governors to decide on bills, which some argue could lead to misuse of power.
The opinion also seems to give Governors more discretion than what the Constitution's framers originally intended.
Some experts suggest that the court could have asked the Parliament to set a time limit to prevent Governors from keeping bills pending for too long.
The Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 regarding the Governor's power to withhold assent to bills.
The court's opinion is seen as sidelining the spirit of the Constitution, which emphasizes democratic accountability and cooperative federalism.
The term 'withhold assent' has been interpreted as an absolute 'pocket veto', a concept not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
The opinion did not set a specific timeline for Governors to decide on bills, unlike an earlier decision in the Tamil Nadu Governor case which prescribed a 3-month timeline.
The advisory opinion is criticized for not establishing guidelines to prevent the politically motivated use of the Governor's discretion.
- Who
- Supreme Court of India
- What
- Issued an advisory opinion on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 regarding the Governor's power to withhold assent to bills
- When
- Recent (exact date not specified)
- Where
- India
- Why
- To clarify the constitutional boundaries and spirit of the Governor's discretion in withholding assent to bills
- Articles in Question
- Articles 200 and 201
- Key Term
- withhold assent
- Concept Discussed
- Pocket veto
- Timeline Mentioned
- 3-month timeline (in Tamil Nadu Governor case)
- Constitutional Provision
- Article 142
- Legislative Intent
- Governor not to have discretionary power
- Concern Raised
- Politically motivated use of discretion