In a landmark ruling with significant implications for Centre-State relations, a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India held on November 20, 2025 that a Governor cannot withhold assent to a State Bill indefinitely. The bench ruled that a Governor has only three constitutionally permissible options when a Bill is presented for assent: grant assent, return the Bill to the legislature for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President's consideration.

The ruling came in the context of repeated controversies where Governors — particularly in Opposition-ruled states — had sat on Bills passed by State Assemblies for extended periods without acting, effectively creating a constitutional deadlock. The Supreme Court clarified that the Governor's powers under Article 200 of the Constitution are not absolute and cannot be exercised in a manner that is arbitrary or tantamount to a pocket veto.

The Constitution Bench emphasised that the Governor is a constitutional functionary who must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163. The court observed that Governors acting contrary to constitutional norms undermine the federal structure and the democratic mandate of elected State Governments.

The ruling is particularly significant for states like Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Kerala, and Punjab where Governors had delayed assent to multiple Bills for months or years. The judgment reinforces that India's federal framework does not permit Governors to act as instruments of the Union Government to obstruct duly enacted state legislation.

This decision strengthens the constitutional principle of cooperative federalism and limits the scope for misuse of the Governor's office in politically charged Centre-State disputes.