The Supreme Court of India is set to pronounce a landmark verdict on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, that will define the constitutional boundaries of a Governor's power concerning legislative Bills passed by state assemblies. This opinion, highly anticipated across political and legal circles, addresses a core question of Indian federalism.
The Constitutional Bench and the Presidential Reference
The judgment will be delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, mere days before his scheduled retirement on November 23. The case reached the apex court through a Presidential reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under the advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution. This reference posed fourteen distinct questions of law for the court's consideration, centering on the extent of judicial power to regulate the actions of constitutional authorities.
The Heart of the Legal Dispute
The immediate trigger for this reference was a ruling by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in April 2025. In that case, the Court had deemed the Tamil Nadu Governor's prolonged delay in granting assent to Bills as unconstitutional. The bench had gone a step further by setting specific, binding timelines for the Governor to act on such legislation.
The Union Government, challenging this precedent, argued before the Constitution Bench that the judiciary cannot act as a judicial headmaster by imposing rigid, straightjacket deadlines. The Centre's counsel emphasized that the phrase as soon as possible in Article 200 of the Constitution does not translate to an immediate or fixed deadline. They contended that a Governor is not a mere postman or a showpiece and possesses the discretion to withhold assent, effectively causing the Bill to fail.
The Stance of the States and the Federal Argument
In a strong counter-argument, several Opposition-ruled states, including Tamil Nadu and Kerala, accused the Central government of attempting to overturn the April judgment under the garb of a reference. These states asserted that Governors are constitutionally bound by the aid and advice of the state's Council of Ministers.
They argued that a Governor cannot exercise a pocket veto to indefinitely paralyze the legislative agenda of an elected government, a move they equated to colonial-era viceregal powers. Our Governors are not Viceroys, was a central theme of their argument, underscoring that democratic governance must ultimately reflect the popular will expressed through state assemblies.
The verdict, expected by 10:45 PM IST, will thus provide a crucial interpretation of the powers of Governors and the President, potentially reshaping the dynamics between elected state governments and the appointed offices of the Governor in India's federal structure.
