33 Bills await assent in opposition-ruled states amid Supreme Court ruling on Governor’s powers

At least 33 bills passed by state legislatures in four Opposition-ruled states are currently awaiting assent from governors or the President, amid heightened debate over constitutional powers and federal balance following a recent Supreme Court ruling. The apex court on Thursday held that it cannot impose timelines on governors or the President for approving or returning bills, but stressed that constitutional authorities must not indefinitely delay their decisions.

According to officials, 19 of the pending bills are from West Bengal, 10 from Karnataka, three from Telangana and at least one from Kerala. The court clarified that while governors retain discretion under Article 200, prolonged inaction could violate constitutional principles and may be subject to limited judicial review. However, it refused to prescribe fixed time frames or allow courts to grant deemed assent in future.

The ruling comes months after a two-judge Supreme Court bench had, using its plenary powers under Article 142, granted deemed assent to 10 bills from Tamil Nadu on April 8, which have since been notified as laws. Experts confirmed those laws remain valid, as the new judgment does not apply retrospectively to cases where assent has already been deemed and notified.

The issue of delayed assent has become politically charged, with several state governments accusing governors of stalling key legislative initiatives. In West Bengal, bills waiting in Raj Bhavan include those related to education and administrative reforms. Karnataka’s pending bills reportedly include welfare and reservation-based legislative measures. Telangana and Kerala too have flagged concerns over delays, arguing that such inaction disrupts governance and undermines the legislative mandate.

Governors, however, maintain their constitutional role allows them to refer bills for further consideration or to the President, especially when they involve broader legal or national implications. The Supreme Court, while recognizing this discretion, noted that constitutional offices must function within a framework of accountability and cooperative federalism.

Legal scholars say the ruling clarifies the limits of judicial intervention in legislative processes while highlighting the need for respectful coordination between elected governments and constitutional heads. State leaders, however, continue to push for clearer guidelines to prevent indefinite delays in legislative implementation.

The pending bills remain in legal and administrative limbo as states await decisions from governors and, in some cases, the President.