What a Governor Can Do With a State Bill Under Article 200, and What the Court Said

Under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, a bill passed by a state's Legislative Assembly goes to the Governor. In a state with a Legislative Council, both Houses must pass it first. The Governor must then declare one of three things: assent, withholding of assent, or reservation of the bill for the President. The Constitution does not set a deadline for that decision.

In an advisory opinion delivered on 20 November 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that courts cannot impose timelines on a Governor or the President, and that deemed assent has no constitutional basis. The opinion responded to 14 questions that President Droupadi Murmu referred under Article 143 of the Constitution, and returned question 14 unanswered.

For bills pending before a Governor, the three options and the limits on court action are the core of the ruling.

The Three Options Under Article 200

The process starts when a bill is passed by the Legislative Assembly, or by both Houses where a Legislative Council exists, and is presented to the Governor. The Governor then has three options, and the Constitution attaches no fixed number of days to any of them.

The first option is assent, in which the Governor declares that he assents to the bill.

The second option is withholding assent. The Governor may return a bill that is not a money bill, together with a message asking the House or Houses to reconsider it or specific provisions in it. The message may recommend amendments, and money bills are outside this return route.

LiveLaw reports that the Court treated withholding as bound up with that return, so a Governor who withholds assent must send the bill back to the Assembly. If the Legislature passes the bill again, the text says the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom.

The third option is reservation for the President's consideration. Article 200 requires the Governor to reserve any bill that, in the Governor's opinion, would derogate from the powers of the High Court so as to endanger the position the Court is designed to fill. Article 201 governs what the President does next.

Read together, the first proviso restricts the options rather than adding a fourth, and the withholding route applies only to non-money bills. A bill passed again after a return is presented to the Governor for assent.

What the 20 November 2025 Opinion Held on Timelines

The opinion was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar. The President made the reference on 13 May 2025. Verdictum says it was placed before the Constitution Bench on 22 July 2025, and that hearing commenced on 19 August 2025. Wikipedia gives 22 July 2025 as the submission date. LiveLaw and Wikipedia say the Bench heard the matter for ten days and reserved its opinion on 11 September 2025, while SC Observer's coverage labels the day judgement was reserved as Day 12.

On timelines, the Court held that a deadline set by a court for the Governor under Article 200 was erroneous. Verdictum quotes the Court as saying that imposing timelines would be 'strictly contrary' to the elasticity the Constitution preserves.

The same reasoning applies to the President. The President, too, cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines under Article 201, Verdictum reports.

The opinion also declared paragraphs 260 and 261 of the April 2025 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu erroneous. That judgment was delivered on 8 April 2025 and is cited as 2025 INSC 481.

The reported answers include the Governor's options, timelines, deemed assent and judicial review of decisions under Articles 200 and 201.

Why the Court Rejected Deemed Assent

Deemed assent would attach a consequence to a court-set deadline. When the period ran out, a bill would count as approved without any decision by the Governor or the President.

Verdictum reports the Court's view that deemed consent at the expiry of a judicially set timeline is 'virtually a takeover' of executive functions by the judiciary.

The Leaflet reports the Court's view that one constitutional authority cannot assume powers belonging to another. LiveLaw reports that the Court treated the approach as a violation of separation of powers, and Wikipedia describes the idea as against the spirit of the Constitution.

In the Court's framing, the decision on a bill belongs to the Governor or the President, and a court-set timeline cannot change who decides. Under the opinion, neither a court-set timeline nor its expiry can stand in for that decision.

Courts Stay Out of the Merits Before a Law Takes Effect

The Leaflet reports that decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are not subject to judicial review before a law comes into force. Courts cannot examine the contents of a bill or the merits of a decision at that pre-enactment stage.

Governors keep personal immunity under Article 361, the Leaflet also reports, but that immunity does not shield the office from the Court's limited review.

The rejection of timelines does not close the courts to delay.

When Courts Can Still Act on a Stalled Bill

The rejection of timelines does not close the courts to delay. LiveLaw reports that courts may intervene where inaction is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite, and where it frustrates the legislative process.

In such a case, a court can issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to decide within a reasonable time. The order does not comment on the merits of the Governor's discretion. The Leaflet reports the Court framed this route as a way to prevent constitutional standstill.

The standard is a reasonable time, not a fixed number of days. Wikipedia states that governors cannot indefinitely postpone bills passed by state legislatures.

What the Opinion Means for Opposition-Led States

LiveLaw names West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Punjab as states whose counsel argued for timelines and judicial intervention during the proceedings. The opinion rejects that approach.

For a state with a bill pending before the Governor, the reported holdings mean there is no court-set deadline to enforce. The route the opinion describes is a limited order for prolonged, unexplained inaction, granted without a ruling on the Governor's discretion.

The three options in Article 200 are the ones the opinion discusses. A Governor who withholds assent on a non-money bill must return it to the Assembly with a message, and a re-passed bill cannot be withheld from assent under the text.

For readers in a state with a pending bill, the reports point to three checks: whether the Governor has assented, returned the bill with a message, or reserved it; whether the bill is a money bill; and whether any delay is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite.

The opinion answers a reference from the President, and Wikipedia describes it as not binding.