Governors Cannot Use Absolute or Pocket Veto

Author: Naina Kanwar Shekhawat, Army Law College, Pune



To The Point:

Indian Governors do not enjoy the same veto rights as the President. While the President can reject a bill categorically (absolute veto) or send it to the limbo (pocket veto), the hands of a Governor are tied more tightly by the Constitution.

Under Article 200, when the State Legislature enacts a bill, the Governor is faced with three options:

1. Provide assent.


2. Withhold assent (but return it with reasons).

3. Reserve the bill for the President.

What they cannot do is hold it forever or reject it forever without due process. Unwarranted delays are against the democratic spirit and have been consistently condemned by courts and constitutional experts as improper and unconstitutional.

—

What the Legal Terms Mean:

In legal terms:

Absolute Veto means rejecting a bill outright and forever.

Pocket Veto is to delay a bill by doing nothing—neither approving nor rejecting it.

The President can do both according to Article 111.

But Governors don’t have that luxury under Article 200. They have to act—they cannot leave a bill pending forever or silently bury it. If they do, that would amount to a breach of constitutional trust, federalism, and democratic ethics.

Such delays can even be contested in court if they seem arbitrary or politically driven. The Governor needs to respond within a reasonable time, and always on the advice of the Council of Ministers, never at their own will.

—

Supported by Law:

This is not theory—it’s supported by the Constitution and court decisions.

According to Article 200, Governors have no option of remaining silent or indecisive.

In the historical case of Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala (1962), the Supreme Court held that Governors should act within the contours of the Constitution, not as a matter of personal discretion.

Subsequently, in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), the Court reiterated that Governors should act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, save in exceptional situations.

Findings of the Sarkaria Commission and Punchhi Commission also emphasized that Governors should not hold up or delay legislative proceedings. The 2023 Telangana case and the 2025 Tamil Nadu judgment further drove this home, with courts being scathing in their criticism of delays as a grave constitutional issue.

—

Abstract Summary:

In short, Governors cannot exercise an absolute veto or a pocket veto. They have to operate within the parameters of Article 200, and have to either:

Grant assent,

Return the bill with reasons, or

Refer it to the President.

Every unnecessary delay or refusal is against the canons of responsible government and constitutional morality. The 2023 and 2025 judgements of the Supreme Court make it loud and clear: excessive delays may even lead to a constitutional collapse under Article 356.

—

Authentic Case Laws:

1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025)

The SC made it explicit that Governors cannot conjure up a “fourth option” by doing nothing.

If they refuse assent, they have to send the bill back with reasons—no vague limbo permitted.

2. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Governor (2023)

Confirmed that absolute veto is unconstitutional.

Governors have to indicate their decision—they can’t remain silent and do nothing indefinitely.

——

Conclusion:

Governors aren’t monarchs—they’re guardians of the constitution. They’re meant to enable democracy, not delay it.

✅ No Absolute Veto: They can’t kill a bill by refusing assent without reason.
✅ No Pocket Veto: They can’t hold up bills in silence indefinitely.

The Constitution requires action quickly—usually between 1 to 3 months. Where Governors fail to act, courts can step in. In fact, in the Tamil Nadu case, the SC even applied Article 142 to treat bills as passed due to unwarranted delay.

Ultimately, Governors must follow the advice of the Council of Ministers, respect the legislature’s role, and act fairly, transparently, and on time. They’re guardians of due process, not power players.

FAQS

1. What can a Governor do when a bill is passed by the State Legislature?
They have three clear options:

Assent to it,

Return it with reasons (once),

Send it to the President.
✖ Remaining silent or delaying indefinitely is not allowed.


2. What if a Governor takes too long?
The courts can intervene. In the case of Tamil Nadu, the SC considered bills as passed under Article 142 to safeguard legislative intent.

3. Why does this matter?

It upholds democracy and federalism.

It holds Governors accountable.

It stops misuse of constitutional positions to delay state legislations inordinately.