A treasure trove of questions, hidden in seemingly innocuous and plain language used in Article 200, has opened up.

The question of whether Governor is bound to act on aid and advice of Council of Ministers in all circumstances, fell for consideration of this Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831.

It is pertinent to observe, observations made by A.N. Ray CJ, speaking for Majority, in Paragraphs 54, 55 and 56. It is important to read observations made in Paragraph 56 along with Paragraph 54. A conjoint reading makes clear, without a cavil of doubt, second proviso to Article 200 is an instance where Governor has been conferred with power to act in his discretion and even against advice of Council of Ministers.

 Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023].

State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 481 appears to notice Paragraph 54 to 56 from Ray J speaking for Majority in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831. We are of considered opinion, Governor does enjoy discretion in discharging his functions under Article 200. Either Governor enjoys discretion or he does not. There is no interpretative space for discretion while exercising some options of Article 200 and no discretion in others. This second proviso is not an exception to exercise of discretion contemplated under substantive part of Article 200. State of Tamil Nadu, where it held, only situation in which discretion has been explicitly laid down is in second proviso to Article 200, is erroneous.

– In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by Governor and President of India, [Special Reference No. 1 of 2025] decided on 20.11.2025.

_____

The use of the expression ‘as soon as possible’, in first proviso to Article 200, infuses a sense of urgency upon Governor and expects him to act with expediency if he decides to declare, withholding of assent.

Ram Chand v. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 44 held, where for exercise of power no time-limit is fixed, it has to be exercised within a time which can be held to be reasonable. State of Telangana v. Secretary to Her Excellency, Hon’ble Governor for State of Telangana, (2024) 1 SCC 405 emphasized, the phrase ‘as soon as possible’ has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional functionaries. It is not unusual for this Court to prescribe time-limits for discharge of certain functions, even in cases where no specific time-limit has been prescribed [Periyammal v. Rajamani, 2025 INSC 329]. Courts are well-empowered to prescribe a time-limit for discharge of any function or exercise of any power which, by its very nature, demands expediency.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023].

The said phrase cannot translate into strict imposition of timelines on Governor for exercise of his discretion and carrying out his functions under Article 200. We are required to clarify, Paragraphs 260-261 of State of Tamil Nadu and corresponding conclusions at Paragraphs 456.10 to 456.14.4 as well, pertaining to imposition of timelines on Governor under Article 200, are erroneous. It would not be appropriate for this Court to judicially prescribe timelines for exercise of powers under Article 200.

– In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by Governor and President of India, [Special Reference No. 1 of 2025] decided on 20.11.2025.