SC: Governor Cannot Withhold Bills Indefinitely — Pocket Veto Ruled Unconstitutional
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a landmark ruling that reinforces democratic accountability, the Supreme Court has held that state Governors cannot withhold assent to bills passed by State Legislatures for an indefinite period. The Court declared that such prolonged inaction—often referred to as a "pocket veto"—is unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Background
- The case arose from a prolonged delay by certain Governors in giving assent to bills duly passed by their respective State Assemblies.
- Multiple states, including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana, had raised concerns about the Governors not acting on key legislation for months—sometimes even years—without providing a decision.
- The petitions challenged this inaction as a violation of constitutional duties and a breakdown in the legislative process.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
- Governor’s Role is Constitutional, Not Discretionary
The Court clarified that the Governor acts as a constitutional figurehead in the state machinery and does not have absolute discretion when dealing with bills passed by the legislature.
- Timely Action is a Constitutional Mandate
Article 200 of the Constitution gives the Governor limited options: to grant assent, withhold assent, or return the bill for reconsideration (if not a money bill). But none of these options permit indefinite inaction.
- Pocket Veto Has No Place in a Parliamentary Democracy
The Court drew a sharp distinction between delay and constitutional paralysis. It ruled that a Governor’s silence effectively blocks legislative will, amounting to an abuse of power.
- Doctrine of Accountability Upheld
In a parliamentary system, the executive is accountable to the legislature. If a Governor stalls legislation indefinitely, it undermines the will of the elected representatives and disrupts democratic balance.
Implications of the Judgment
- Time-Bound Action Now Expected
Although the Court did not fix an exact time limit, it emphasized that Governors must act on bills “within a reasonable time,” leaving open the possibility of future judicial review in cases of delay.
- Checks Against Political Interference
The ruling curbs potential misuse of the Governor’s office as a political tool to obstruct state governance, especially when the Governor and ruling party belong to opposing camps.
- Reinforces Federal Balance
This decision strengthens the autonomy of state legislatures by ensuring that duly passed laws cannot be indefinitely stalled by non-elected constitutional functionaries.
- Judicial Oversight on Executive Inaction
The judgment opens the door for courts to intervene if Governors delay action without justification, reinforcing the idea that even constitutional authorities must act within defined limits.
Conclusion
By ruling that Governors cannot withhold assent to bills indefinitely, the Supreme Court has reasserted the constitutional principles of legislative supremacy, accountability, and timely governance. The judgment marks an important step in preventing misuse of constitutional provisions to stall democratic processes. It not only restores the proper balance between the legislature and executive at the state level but also sends a strong message that constitutional roles must be exercised responsibly—not arbitrarily or politically.
RELATED Blog
0 comments