Governor’s assent and bill withholding: impact on state legislation and remedial strategies for stakeholders

  • Post category:Blog
  • Reading time:9 mins read

Governor’s assent and bill withholding: impact on state legislation and remedial strategies for stakeholders

Table of Contents

Governor’s assent and bill withholding in 2025—what the Supreme Court has now held, how it reshapes State legislation, and practical remedial strategies for governments, Speakers, departments, and civil society. It includes timelines, decision trees, and ready-to-use SOPs for stakeholders navigating Articles 200 and 201.

Key holding in 2025

  • The Supreme Court held that indefinite withholding of assent or inaction by Governors is illegal—there is no “pocket veto” or “absolute veto” under Article 200, and Governors must act within defined timelines and in line with constitutional constraints.
  • After a bill is returned once and repassed by the Assembly (with or without amendments), the Governor is bound to grant assent; reservation for the President after repassage is impermissible except if the repassed bill is materially different or falls in narrow exceptions.
  • The Court prescribed workable timelines for gubernatorial action and, for reserved bills, set a decision window for the President, curbing open-ended stasis.

What Article 200/201 allow—now clarified

  • Governor at first instance: may assent, return once with a message for reconsideration, or reserve for the President; prolonged inaction is unconstitutional.
  • After repassage: Governor cannot reserve as a means to avoid assent; must assent unless the bill has materially changed or falls in narrowly defined reservation categories.
  • President under Article 201: may assent or withhold; may return with a message; the Supreme Court has nudged a three-month outer limit relying on executive memoranda, enabling mandamus for undue delay.

Court-prescribed timelines and process cues

  • Governor timelines: one month to act when following Cabinet advice; up to three months if acting contrary to advice; one month after re-presentation (repassed bill). These are to give operative meaning to “as soon as possible” under Article 200.
  • President timeline: decide on reserved bills within three months; persistent inaction can invite mandamus.
  • One return only: a bill can be returned once; upon repassage, the constitutional expectation is assent.

Impact on State legislation and federal balance

  • Removes veto by delay: Governors cannot “sleep on bills”; legislative agenda regains predictability and timeliness.
  • Restores Cabinet primacy: reaffirms aid-and-advice in routine assent decisions, limiting discretionary obstruction except where expressly provided (e.g., bills affecting higher judiciary jurisdiction).
  • Tightens reservation gate: “Reserve for President” is an initial-stage option, not a fallback after repassage—reduces central bottlenecking via Article 201.
  • Sets litigation pathway: States can seek mandamus against unconstitutional withholding or delay; courts may even deem assent in egregious cases using Article 142 powers, as seen for the set of Tamil Nadu bills.

Stakeholder-specific remedial strategies

For State governments (Law/Parl Affairs/Home)

  • Calendar control: track every bill’s journey from passage to Raj Bhavan with a live dashboard keyed to Court timelines (T+30/T+90/T+30).
  • Return-logic SOP: if a bill is returned, prepare a structured reconsideration note, address the Governor’s message in debate, and aim for quick repassage to trigger the “bound to assent” stage.
  • Reservation gatekeeping: vet at drafting stage whether a bill falls in categories apt for reservation; avoid post-repass reservation risks by ensuring judicially sensitive domains (e.g., HC/SC jurisdiction) are approached with consultative clarity.
  • Mandamus readiness: on nearing timeline expiry, prepare a focused writ (Article 226) seeking directions to decide within a fixed period; compile the bill history, correspondence, and Cabinet advice records.
  • President-track discipline: if a bill is validly reserved, build a three-month liaison schedule with MHA/Legislative Department, track references, and be ready to move court if the three-month outer limit passes without decision.

For Speakers/Secretariats

  • Message compliance file: maintain a standard template to record the Governor’s “message” on return and the Assembly’s point-wise response upon repassage; annex to the repassed bill dossier.
  • Journal entries: capture timelines in the Assembly record to aid judicial review if delay litigation arises; this documentary chain was pivotal in the 2025 rulings.
  • Standing counsel alerts: auto-notify the AG/Advocate General’s office 15 days before each constitutional timeline threshold expires.

For Departments piloting bills

  • Pre-clearance checklist: flag if the bill touches higher judiciary, central subjects, or requires Presidential assent under other constitutional provisions—seek early consults to avoid later reservation disputes.
  • Rationale memo: prepare a “Governor briefing” note outlining competence, object, fiscal impact, and constitutional position to reduce returns for want of clarity.

For civil society/industry bodies

  • Transparency track: seek information on pending bills and reasons for delay; use mandamus as intervenors or petitioners where rights or sector operations are impeded by gubernatorial inaction.
  • Amicus briefs: in systemic delay cases, offer comparative practice and administrative reform suggestions aligned with the Court’s timelines.

Litigation playbook and petition structure

Writ of mandamus (against unconstitutional withholding/delay)

  • Facts: bill passage date, transmission to Governor, absence of action beyond Court windows; if returned, repassage chronology, and post-repass conduct.
  • Grounds: (i) Article 200 admits only three options; inaction violates Constitution; (ii) after repassage, assent is the rule; post-repass reservation is impermissible save material changes; (iii) Court timelines breached—seek direction to assent/decide within days.
  • Reliefs: direction to decide within x days; in egregious cases, deeming relief or structural directions consistent with the 2025 approach.

If reserved to President

  • Seek scheduling order: prayer for decision within the three-month window; disclosure of reasons if withholding; liberty to re-approach upon breach.

Deeming assent—when to ask

  • Only in exceptional facts where delay is egregious and mala fide, multiple bills are stalled, and Court timelines and instructions were ignored; cite 2025 Tamil Nadu pathway and Article 142 equity used there.

Compliance SOPs: end-to-end

Bill passage to Raj Bhavan

  • T0: Bill passed; seal and dispatch within 48 hours to Governor; upload to internal tracker.
  • T0+7: Law/Parl Affairs prepares Governor briefing with constitutional notes.
  • T0+30: If no action, send reminder citing Supreme Court’s “one month” expectation.
  • T0+60/90: Escalate to AG office for pre-filing notice; draft mandamus.

On return with message

  • Schedule floor time within 14–21 days; circulate Government’s clause-wise answer; repass and resend with covering note highlighting addressed points.

Post-repass

  • Governor must assent within one month; any attempt to reserve should be challenged if bill unchanged and not within narrow exception space.

If reserved validly

  • Activate Centre liaison; diary three-month outer limit; prepare to seek judicial direction if exceeded.

Risk matrix and mitigations

Legal risks

  • Post-repass reservation challenge: Mitigate by documenting “no material change” and competence; seek urgent listing if reservation appears tactical.
  • Presidential delay beyond three months: Move for mandamus referencing MHA memoranda and Court guidance.
  • Federal friction: Use reasoned, restrained pleadings; emphasize institutional timelines and public interest rather than political critique.

Operational risks

  • Drafting errors inviting legitimate return: Strengthen pre-legislative vetting (competence/Fundamental Rights tests), include Statements of Objects & Reasons that squarely address foreseeable concerns.
  • Documentation gaps: Maintain complete transmission logs, acknowledgments, and diary entries; these were decisive in 2025 adjudication.

Frequently asked questions (2025)

  • Can a Governor sit indefinitely on a bill? No—Supreme Court has held indefinite withholding/inaction illegal; prescribed practical time limits.
  • Can a Governor reserve a bill after it is repassed? As a rule, no; reservation is an initial-stage option. After repassage, assent is expected unless the bill is materially different or falls within narrow exceptions.
  • What if the President doesn’t act on a reserved bill? The Court directed a three-month decision window; States can seek mandamus on breach.
  • Can courts deem assent? In exceptional cases of constitutional breach and sustained delay, the Supreme Court used Article 142 to deem assent. This is not routine but signals strong judicial intolerance of obstruction.

Comparative and forward outlook

  • The April 2025 verdict curtails “pocket veto” possibilities and gives administrators a rulebook to keep legislation moving. Subsequent proceedings in the Presidential Reference suggest most issues raised have been addressed by the Tamil Nadu judgment; remaining clarifications will likely hew to the same principles.
  • Public statements from the bench underscore that “as soon as possible” cannot mean “for eternity,” reinforcing that time is now a constitutional variable enforceable through courts.

Templates for stakeholders

Covering letter (post-repass)
“Pursuant to Article 200 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment dated 8 April 2025, the repassed Bill is re-submitted for assent. The Assembly has considered the message and addressed the points as tabulated in Annexure-1. As the Bill is materially unchanged in core substance, reservation at this stage does not arise. We request assent within one month.”

Mandamus petition (extract)
“The Respondent Governor has failed to act on Bill No. X within the constitutionally required period. Under Articles 200/201 as clarified by the Supreme Court (8 April 2025), indefinite withholding is illegal; after repassage, the Governor is bound to assent. Petitioner prays for a direction to accord assent within 7 days, and in the alternative, for consequential relief consistent with the said judgment.”

President liaison note
“Bill reserved on [date]. As per SC guidance (SCObserver summary), a decision should be taken within three months. Kindly apprise status and queries to facilitate timely decision; delay beyond [date] will necessitate remedial proceedings.”

Decision trees for quick use

Decision tree A (Governor at first instance)

  • Does the bill implicate HC/SC jurisdiction or mandatory reservation categories? If yes, consider reservation now; else proceed to assent or single return with message.
  • If returned, and Assembly repasses (same core), assent within one month; do not reserve unless material changes justify.

Decision tree B (State Government)

  • No action by T+30 → reminder; T+90 → prepare writ; on return → schedule repassage; on repassage → diarize T+30 for assent; on reservation → engage MHA; T+90 → mandamus.

Bottom line

The 2025 Supreme Court verdicts have rewritten the operating manual for state legislation: Governors cannot stall bills by silence or serial tactics, reservation is an initial-stage tool (not a post-repass escape), and both Governors and the President are now effectively on clocks. States should operationalize dashboards, SOPs, and mandamus playbooks. Speakers and departments should strengthen documentation and pre-vetting. Civil society has a clearer path to enforce timelines. Together, these shifts reduce friction in India’s federal law-making and place constitutional time discipline at the heart of assent.

Tags: , , , , ,