In a significant turn in the ongoing tussle between states and the Centre over gubernatorial powers, the Union government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that governors cannot hold onto bills passed by state legislatures indefinitely. The Centre’s statement comes amid rising concerns that such delays are undermining democratic processes and frustrating elected governments.
The issue reached the country’s top court after several opposition-ruled states accused governors of sitting on crucial legislation for months without either giving assent or sending them back. The Centre, through the Attorney General, acknowledged this problem and clarified that constitutional positions cannot be misused to stall governance.
The courtroom exchange
During the hearing, a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asked the Centre whether there should be clear timelines for governors to act on bills. The Attorney General responded, “The Constitution does not empower governors to keep bills pending indefinitely. They are bound to act in a reasonable time frame.”
The statement is crucial because it directly addresses the ambiguity that has long surrounded Article 200 of the Constitution, which deals with gubernatorial powers over state legislation. Traditionally, governors have had four options: give assent, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration. But the lack of a fixed timeline has allowed prolonged inaction.
you can also read :Red Sea cable cuts disrupt Asia–Mideast internet
States’ growing frustration
Over the past year, several state governments—particularly Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab—have expressed their anger at governors delaying bills, ordinances, and even key administrative decisions. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin had earlier remarked, “Democracy is defeated when unelected individuals block the will of the elected assembly.”
Kerala too had moved the Supreme Court, alleging that its governor was deliberately withholding assent to politically sensitive bills. In Punjab, the issue became so heated that the state cabinet publicly accused the governor of “playing politics.”
Political analysts see the Centre’s admission in the Supreme Court as a rare moment of agreement with opposition parties. It also puts pressure on governors, who are appointed by the Union government, to act more swiftly.
Why it matters
At the heart of the matter is the balance of power between the Union and the states. India’s federal structure gives states the right to legislate on matters within their domain, but governors—appointed by the Centre—act as a constitutional check. When this check turns into a roadblock, governance suffers.
For instance, in states like Telangana, welfare schemes and administrative reforms were delayed because bills never received timely assent. Critics argue this goes against the spirit of cooperative federalism.
Professor Anil Mishra, a constitutional expert, explained, “The governor is supposed to act as a neutral link between the Union and the state. If bills are kept pending without justification, it is not neutrality but obstruction.”
The Supreme Court’s stance
The apex court has on multiple occasions emphasized that constitutional authorities must exercise their discretion in a fair and timely manner. In past rulings, the Court noted that while governors have certain powers, they cannot override the collective will of an elected assembly.
Wednesday’s hearing echoed the same principle. The Chief Justice observed, “Our system cannot allow a situation where the functioning of the state legislature is brought to a standstill because of indefinite delays.”
The Court has reserved its directions for now but indicated that it may lay down broad guidelines to prevent misuse of gubernatorial discretion. Legal experts believe the Court could recommend a specific time limit—such as three or six months—for governors to decide on bills.
Possible ripple effects
If the Supreme Court issues binding guidelines, the relationship between governors and state governments may undergo a major shift. States would gain greater certainty that their legislative work will not be arbitrarily blocked. On the other hand, governors might lose a powerful tool that has often been used in political battles.
Such a ruling would also strengthen federalism by reaffirming that elected legislatures—not appointed governors—hold the final word in lawmaking. It may even push Parliament to amend the Constitution to insert clear timelines in Article 200, though such an amendment could face resistance.
Looking ahead
The Centre’s stand signals a recognition that unchecked gubernatorial power has become a flashpoint in Indian politics. Whether the Supreme Court converts this acknowledgment into enforceable guidelines will determine how state–Centre relations evolve in the coming years.
For now, the message is clear: bills passed by state assemblies cannot be trapped in constitutional limbo forever. The Court’s eventual verdict could set a precedent shaping the contours of Indian federalism for decades to come.
You can also read : Why Google Is Rewriting the Rules for Its Software Engineers