The Governor in Indian States: Powers, Discretion and Recent Judgments

The Governor is the constitutional head of a State and, as a general rule, acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister (Article 163). Personal discretion exists only where the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication allows it. On Bills, the current position after the Supreme Court's opinion of 20 November 2025 is this: the Governor must assent, withhold assent and return the Bill, or reserve it for the President; courts cannot fix timelines or declare "deemed assent", but they can direct a Governor to decide within a reasonable time when there is prolonged, unexplained inaction.

This explainer is for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for Constitutional Law, and for citizens who have followed the long dispute between the Tamil Nadu Government and Raj Bhavan. Few topics have moved as fast in recent years, and examiners now expect students to know both the April 2025 judgment and the November 2025 opinion that followed it.

Where are the Governor's powers in the Constitution?

The Governor sits in Part VI, Chapter II of the Constitution. Learn these articles as a set:

• Article 153 to 159: the office, the executive power of the State vested in the Governor, appointment by the President, term, qualifications, conditions of office and oath.
• Article 161: power to grant pardons and to suspend, remit or commute sentences for offences against State law.
• Article 163: the Council of Ministers aids and advises the Governor, except where he is required to act in his discretion. Clause (2) makes the Governor's decision on whether a matter falls within his discretion final, and clause (3) bars courts from inquiring whether, and what, advice was tendered.
• Article 174: summoning, proroguing and dissolving the Legislative Assembly.
• Article 200: assent to Bills. Article 201 deals with Bills reserved for the President.
• Article 213: power to promulgate Ordinances when the Legislature is not in session.
• Article 361: personal immunity of the Governor from court proceedings for acts done in the exercise of his powers.

When does the Governor act on advice, and when in discretion?

The starting point is Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831, decided by a seven-judge bench. The Court held that under our cabinet system the President and the Governor are formal heads, and the "satisfaction" the Constitution speaks of is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers, not the personal satisfaction of the Governor.

In Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (13 July 2016), a five-judge bench rejected the argument that the Governor's discretion is wide and beyond review. It held that the Governor could not advance the Assembly session or fix its agenda under Article 174 without the advice of the Council of Ministers, and that these actions are open to judicial review.

Closer home, A.G. Perarivalan (18 May 2022) concerned a recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Cabinet under Article 161 that stayed with the Governor for about two and a half years. A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna held that the Governor was bound by the Cabinet's advice under Article 161, that his non-exercise of the power was not immune from judicial review, and ordered Perarivalan's release using Article 142.

What does Article 200 actually say?

When a Bill passed by the State Legislature is presented, the Governor "shall declare" that he assents, withholds assent, or reserves the Bill for the President. Two provisos follow:

1. First proviso: for a Bill other than a Money Bill, the Governor may return it "as soon as possible" with a message asking the House to reconsider it or any of its provisions. If the House passes it again, with or without amendments, the Governor "shall not withhold assent therefrom".
2. Second proviso: a Bill that, in the Governor's opinion, would so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger its constitutional position must be reserved for the President.

What did the Punjab and Tamil Nadu cases decide?

In State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023 INSC 1017, W.P.(C) No. 1224 of 2023, decided 10 November 2023), a bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that if the Governor withholds assent, he must return the Bill to the Legislature with a message. A Governor cannot stall a Bill indefinitely by doing nothing. The Court added that the Governor may suggest amendments in that message, but the final call on whether to accept them belongs to the Legislature alone.

Then came State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, W.P.(C) No. 1239 of 2023, decided on 8 April 2025 by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. Ten Bills had been re-passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly and then reserved for the President. The Court held the Governor's action illegal and erroneous, ruled out any pocket veto, and laid down time limits: one month where the Governor withholds or reserves on ministerial advice, three months where he acts contrary to that advice, and one month for assent to a re-passed Bill. Using Article 142, it treated the ten Bills as having received assent on the date they were presented to the Governor the second time.

Several of those Bills were University Amendment Acts that moved the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from the Governor to the State. In May 2025 the Madras High Court stayed their operation by an interim order. On 4 February 2026 the Supreme Court set aside that stay and sent the matter back to the High Court for a fresh hearing, asking it to decide within six weeks. The State agreed that no Vice-Chancellor appointments would be made under the new law until the High Court rules. Check the Madras High Court's case status for the outcome of that rehearing.

What is the law now, after the Presidential reference?

The President sought the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 143 on 14 questions. In In re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, Special Reference No. 1 of 2025, 2025 INSC 1333, a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar gave its opinion on 20 November 2025. The key points:

• Article 200 offers three options: assent, withhold (which must be followed by return under the first proviso), or reserve for the President. The first proviso is not a fourth option.
• The Governor exercises discretion under Article 200 and is not bound by ministerial advice in choosing among these options.
• Courts cannot impose timelines on the Governor or the President, and "deemed assent", including through Article 142, is impermissible.
• The Governor's decision is not justiciable on merits, but in cases of prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction a court may issue a limited mandamus asking for a decision within a reasonable time.
• Article 361 protects the Governor personally, but does not shut out this limited review of the office's inaction.

Reports of the opinion describe the April 2025 timelines and deemed assent as untenable. Remember that an Article 143 opinion is advisory; how far it displaces the April 2025 judgment is itself a debated point, and a good answer should say so.

How should you write this in an exam?

1. Open with Article 163 and the rule from Shamsher Singh: advice is the norm, discretion the exception.
2. Quote Article 200 and its two provisos accurately. Examiners notice when "as soon as possible" is missing.
3. Trace the line of cases in order: Shamsher Singh (1974), Nabam Rebia (2016), Perarivalan (2022), Punjab (2023), Tamil Nadu (April 2025), the Presidential reference (November 2025).
4. State the present position clearly, then add a short critical note on federalism and the advisory nature of Article 143 opinions.

A student in Nagercoil writing a 16-mark answer can comfortably cover these four steps in two pages. If you want to discuss such questions in moot or clinic settings, our programmes page lists the courses where Constitutional Law is taught.

Sources

• Constitution of India, Article 200: text of the provision on assent to Bills with drafting history.
• Constitution of India, Article 163: aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
• Supreme Court Observer: summary of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025).
• LiveLaw: report of the Presidential reference opinion of 20 November 2025.
• LiveLaw: report of the timelines laid down in the April 2025 Tamil Nadu judgment.
• JURIST: report of the 2023 Punjab Governor judgment.
• Supreme Court Observer: summary of Nabam Rebia (2016).
• Deccan Herald: Supreme Court order setting aside the Madras High Court stay on the University Amendment Acts.