Supreme Court on Judicial Review of Governor’s Inaction on Bills

Background

• The issue arises from Governors sitting on Bills passed by State legislatures for years without granting or withholding assent.

• In Tamil Nadu v. Governor case, the Governor kept Bills pending, leading to the Supreme Court judgment (April 8, 2025) that prescribed a three-month timeline for Governors and the President to act on Bills.

• The matter is now before a Presidential Reference Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai.

Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 200 – Governor’s powers with respect to State Bills:

   • Assent to the Bill

   • Withhold assent

   • Reserve the Bill for President’s consideration

   • Return the Bill (except Money Bills) for reconsideration

2. Article 356 – Governor can recommend President’s Rule on failure of constitutional machinery in the State.

3. S.R. Bommai Case (1994) – Held that President’s Rule proclamation is subject to judicial review to check mala fide use.

Key Legal Questions

• If President’s Rule (a discretionary act of Governor under Article 356) is subject to judicial review,
  → Why should Article 200 (Governor’s discretion on Bills) not be open to judicial review?

• Is gubernatorial assent a legislative function (as argued by Harish Salve) beyond judicial interference, or an executive act liable for review?

• Can Parliament alone check the misuse of Governor’s office, or does the judiciary also have a role in preventing constitutional deadlock?

Arguments

1. Centre & Some States (Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Haryana, Puducherry)

   • Judicial deadlines on Governors/President are unconstitutional.

   • Any misconduct by a Governor should be corrected by Parliament/Executive, not judiciary.

   • Gubernatorial assent is the last stage of legislation, hence legislative in nature.

   • Courts generally avoid interfering in legislative processes.

2. Supreme Court’s Concern (CJI B.R. Gavai)

   • Allowing Governors to sit indefinitely on Bills undermines federalism and State legislatures.

   • Judicial review ensures constitutional functionaries do not act arbitrarily.

Ambedkar’s Vision

• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:

  • The Centre and States function in their respective spheres.

  • Intervention only in cases of breakdown of constitutional machinery (e.g., emergency).

  • Suggests that the Governor is not a free agent, but a constitutional link, expected to act in good faith.

Significance

• Federal Balance: Judicial oversight prevents Governors from acting as political agents of the Centre.

• Legislative Efficiency: Ensures that State legislatures are not reduced to a mockery if Bills remain pending for years.

• Separation of Powers: Raises debate on whether Governors’ powers are legislative or executive in character.

Insight

• The Court’s comparison between Article 356 (reviewable) and Article 200 (presently unchecked) highlights a constitutional gap.

• Judicial review may emerge as a constitutional necessity to prevent misuse of gubernatorial powers.

• Ultimately, the balance lies in ensuring that Governors do not obstruct democracy at the State level, while courts respect the legislative sanctity of the process.