Governor’s Role in Legislative Process – Supreme Court Verdict 2024 and Its Implications

In a landmark 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the delay by the Tamil Nadu Governor in assenting to Bills passed by the state legislature. The Court held that Governors cannot act as power centres to stall democratically passed laws, and invoked Article 142 to ensure time-bound action—strengthening constitutional morality, legislative supremacy, and cooperative federalism.

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction: Context and Constitutional Conflict

2. Background: Governor’s Discretion in Legislative Assent

3. The 2024 Supreme Court Verdict: Trigger and Key Directives

4. Constitutional Provisions Involved

5. Key Judicial Observations

6. Interpretative Shift: From Discretion to Accountability

7. Implications of the Verdict

8. Suggestions and the Way Forward

9. Conclusion

Admission Open for Live IAS GS Prelims cum Mains Foundation Batch for 2026/27. Meet our faculties

1. Introduction: Context and Constitutional Conflict:

In 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment regarding the prolonged delay by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in granting assent to several Bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly. The case raised fundamental concerns about the balance between constitutional offices and democratic processes, especially when non-elected authorities appear to obstruct the will of the legislature.

2. Background: Governor’s Discretion in Legislative Assent:

Governors, as constitutional heads of states, are empowered to act on Bills passed by the legislature under Article 200. However, there has been a pattern of delays or inaction by some Governors in recent years, raising questions of political interference and constitutional overreach. The Tamil Nadu case exposed a vacuum in accountability mechanisms and highlighted the need for clearer timelines in the legislative assent process.

3. The 2024 Supreme Court Verdict: Trigger and Key Directives:

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 — its power to do complete justice — and passed a time-bound direction to the Tamil Nadu Governor to act on the Bills pending for assent. The ruling underscored that no constitutional authority can become a bottleneck in the democratic lawmaking process.

The Court emphasized:

• Re-passed Bills by the Assembly must receive assent without further delay.

• Withholding Bills indefinitely, without communication or reason, is unconstitutional.

• The Governor cannot act as an alternate power centre or ideological veto.

Alao Read- A Case for Fair Seat Allocation in the Lok Sabha: Equity vs Population Politics

4. Constitutional Provisions Involved:

• Article 200: The Governor can —

  • (i) Assent to a Bill

  • (ii) Withhold assent

  • (iii) Return the Bill (except Money Bills)

  • (iv) Reserve it for the President

• Article 201: If reserved, the President may assent or withhold assent.

• Article 142: Empowers SC to ensure “complete justice” in any matter before it.

5. Key Judicial Observations:

• The Governor is not an independent parallel authority in a federal structure. The elected legislature reflects the will of the people and cannot be subverted.

• Once a Bill is returned and re-passed by the Assembly without amendments, assent becomes mandatory.

• Indefinite delays violate the principle of constitutional morality.

• The Constitution is a living document, and its provisions must be interpreted to promote democracy, not paralyze it.

6. Interpretative Shift: From Discretion to Accountability:

Historically, Articles 200 and 201 lacked a specific timeline, allowing Governors to stall legislation. This verdict aligns with the jurisprudence established in Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), where the SC held that executive powers must be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

The 2024 ruling takes this further:

• It transforms Governor’s assent from a vague discretion into a duty-bound function.

• Establishes that non-action equals constitutional breakdown, warranting judicial intervention.

7. Implications of the Verdict:

• Strengthens legislative supremacy and prevents obstruction by nominated functionaries.

• Reinforces cooperative federalism — ensuring Centre-State harmony through role clarity.

• Limits arbitrary use of gubernatorial powers, reducing political misuse.

• Empowers state governments to legislate confidently, knowing constitutional authorities cannot block laws indefinitely.

• Restores public trust in institutional checks and balances.

8. Suggestions and the Way Forward:

1. Codify Timelines for Assent:

• A constitutional amendment or legal clarification should fix a time frame (e.g., 30 days) within which the Governor must act on a Bill.

2. Judicial Oversight Mechanism:

• A pre-screening bench or fast-track procedure in the SC could examine procedural constitutionality of delayed Bills in urgent matters.

3. Define “Withholding of Assent”:

• The term should be clarified to prevent misuse or arbitrary application.

4. Annual Accountability Report:

• Governors could be mandated to table a report on pending legislative matters to improve transparency.

5. Training and Orientation for Governors:

• Governors must be sensitized to the spirit of federal democracy and trained to understand their constitutional limitations.

Pariksha - All India Open Mock Test UPSC Prelims 2025 | Date: 4th May, 2025 | Register Now 

9. Conclusion:

The 2024 Supreme Court judgment has drawn a constitutional red line — reaffirming that non-elected heads cannot derail the democratic mandate. In doing so, it has plugged a critical gap in India's federal framework. Moving forward, both Parliament and civil society must ensure that this spirit is translated into institutional practice — where constitutional functionaries remain custodians of democracy, not its gatekeepers.