SC Invalidates Governor’s Delay in Bill Assent Using Pocket Veto
- ByAdmin --
- 09 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent to bills passed by State Legislatures, thereby invalidating the use of a “pocket veto” in the Indian constitutional framework. The ruling comes in response to growing concerns over the misuse of constitutional powers by Governors to stall state legislation by neither assenting to nor returning the bills for reconsideration.
This verdict not only clarifies the boundaries of gubernatorial discretion but also reinforces the principles of federalism, democratic accountability, and constitutional governance.
Background of the Case
The case originated from petitions filed by state governments—most notably, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Telangana—complaining about the inordinate delays by Governors in acting upon bills duly passed by their respective state legislatures.
In some cases, Governors sat on bills for months or even years, without giving assent, returning them, or forwarding them for presidential consideration, effectively stalling the legislative process. This practice has been informally referred to as the “pocket veto,” similar to the executive power of the U.S. President to veto a bill by taking no action.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
- The Court held that the Governor cannot keep a bill pending indefinitely. Doing so violates constitutional trust and parliamentary democracy.
- The Governor is bound to act within a "reasonable time frame", though the Court stopped short of prescribing an exact deadline.
- The concept of a pocket veto is alien to the Indian Constitution, as it contradicts Article 200, which outlines the options available to the Governor.
Constitutional Provisions Referenced
1. Article 200 – Governor’s Assent to Bills
Article 200 of the Constitution provides that when a bill is presented to the Governor after being passed by the State Legislature, the Governor has four options:
- Assent to the bill.
- Withhold assent.
- Return the bill (if it is not a money bill) for reconsideration by the legislature.
- Reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.
The Court emphasized that Article 200 does not envisage indefinite inaction. It implies that the Governor must make a decision within a constitutionally reasonable period.
2. Doctrine of Constitutional Trust
The Governor, though a constitutional authority, is not a political rival of the elected government. The Supreme Court reiterated that Governors are expected to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in matters requiring personal discretion.
3. Article 163 – Aid and Advice of the Council of Ministers
The judgment reaffirmed that the Governor is bound by the advice of the elected state government, except in narrow, exceptional situations. Delaying or sitting on bills without action violates this constitutional principle.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Indefinite delay = Unconstitutional: The Governor cannot indefinitely withhold action on bills; such conduct is contrary to the spirit of Article 200.
- No pocket veto: Unlike the U.S. system, the Indian Constitution does not allow the Governor to kill a bill silently by inaction.
- Time-bound responsibility: Though the Court did not specify a strict deadline, it held that all constitutional authorities must act within a reasonable period, in harmony with democratic functioning.
- Reaffirming federalism: The ruling strengthens the role of elected state governments and limits the scope for political interference by centrally appointed Governors.
Implications for Indian Federalism
- Boosts legislative efficiency: State assemblies can now function without the fear of indefinite gubernatorial obstruction.
- Prevents misuse of office: The ruling curbs politically motivated tactics by Governors to delay or derail state legislation.
- Strengthens accountability: Governors must now justify their actions (or inactions) under judicial scrutiny.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a critical constitutional development, restoring the balance between the ceremonial role of the Governor and the democratic mandate of elected state governments. It sends a strong message that constitutional functionaries cannot use silence as a tool of subversion.
By rejecting the concept of a pocket veto, the Court has reinforced the foundational principles of the Constitution—representative democracy, federal structure, and accountability in governance. It ensures that Governors act not as parallel power centers but as facilitators of the democratic will of the people.
RELATED Blog
0 comments