Bills pending by Governors: A Constitutional Issue

Context

Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai has raised the question whether the Supreme Court, despite being the ‘Guardian of the Constitution’, should sit idly by while governors continue to disrupt the democratic system by stalling bills passed by state assemblies for years. The debate is particularly linked to the Tamil Nadu case where the governor has not taken any decision on several important bills for four years.

Recent Issues

• Bills passed by state assemblies cannot become law without the assent of the governor.
• In many states, governors do not take decisions on these bills for long periods, thereby paralyzing the democratic process.
• The question is whether the Supreme Court can intervene on such inaction or should it be resolved only at the political level.

Recent view of the Supreme Court

• In the decision of April 8, 2025, the court had said that if the President or the Governor does not take any decision in three months, then the bill will be considered 'approved'.
• CJI Gavai clarified that the court does not want to interfere in the functioning of the government, but if the governor keeps the bills pending for years, then the court cannot sit silent.
• The court has considered it a matter related to the basic structure of the Constitution and the democratic system.

View of state governments

• State governments believe that this attitude of the governors is an insult to the mandate of the people.
• Due to the governors keeping the bill pending for years, the policy of the elected governments is not implemented.
• Many states (eg- Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana) have approached the Supreme Court on this.

Central government's view

• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that such problems should be resolved politically.
• He said that the Chief Minister can meet the Prime Minister or the President and motivate the Governor to take action.
• He said that the entry of the court in the executive or legislative area is against the principle of 'separation of powers' of the Constitution.

Why is the responsibility of the Governor not fixed ?

• The Governor is a constitutional authority appointed by the President and is not directly accountable to the public.
• There is no fixed time limit for him in the Constitution as to when a decision has to be taken on the bill.
• Sometimes the Governor postpones the decision due to political reasons also.

Purpose of Constitution

• Articles 200 and 201: Governor has the option to –
  1. Assent to the bill
  2. Reject the bill
  3. Refer to the President
  4. Return it to the state assembly for reconsideration
• But the constitution does not mention the time limit, which creates ambiguity.

Related Supreme Court Judgments

• Kesavananda Bharati case (1973): Judicial review is part of the basic structure of the constitution.
• NJAC case (2015): All the three organs; legislature, executive and judiciary must remain within their limits.
• April 2025 Tamil Nadu case: Court sets time limit for the first time. 

Concerns

• Politicisation of the role of the Governor
• Democratic wishes of the states being ignored
• Conflicts in Centre-State relations
• Question of limits and interference of the judiciary
• Uncertainty in governance due to lack of timelines

Way forward

• Fix a timeline for the Governor to decide on the bill by amending the Constitution
• Clearly define the role of the Governor so that he remains only a constitutional head and not a political stakeholder
• Strengthen cooperative federalism between the Centre and the states
• Work towards protecting the democratic process while balancing the judiciary
• Political parties should resolve the issue within constitutional limits