On November 22, 2025, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), commonly known as CPI(M), voiced strong disappointment in response to a recent advisory opinion issued by the Supreme Court of India regarding the powers of state Governors under Article 200 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had been asked to provide clarity on the extent and limits of Governors’ discretionary powers when it comes to granting assent to Bills passed by State Legislatures. However, the advisory opinion, released last Thursday, has drawn sharp criticism from the Left party, which fears that the ruling will embolden Governors—especially in states ruled by opposition parties—to exercise excessive and arbitrary powers, undermining the federal structure and the rights of states.
The controversy stems from the Supreme Court’s ruling that Governors cannot be compelled by courts to act within a fixed timeline in granting assent to state Bills. While the court acknowledged that Governors do not have the authority to indefinitely withhold assent or “sit” on Bills forever, it stopped short of setting any binding deadlines or clear procedural limits on the exercise of their discretion. This nuanced stance has been perceived by CPI(M) as lacking effective constitutional safeguards against potential misuse of gubernatorial powers.
In a statement issued from New Delhi on Saturday, CPI(M) underscored its dissatisfaction, emphasizing that the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion fails to check the ongoing “assault” on state rights arising from the increasing centralization of power in the hands of the Union government. The party argued that the court’s decision effectively legitimizes the “extra-constitutional” role that Governors are currently playing as political agents of the Centre in opposition-ruled states, where they often act as obstacles to the legislative agenda of elected state governments.
A particularly troubling aspect highlighted by the CPI(M) is the court’s position regarding Bills that have been passed by the State Legislature a second time after the Governor had initially sent them back for reconsideration. According to the advisory opinion, a Governor is not bound to grant assent even after a Bill has been re-adopted by the legislature; instead, the Governor may refer the Bill to the President of India, which can indefinitely delay its enactment. This, the CPI(M) argues, creates a loophole that allows Governors to stall legislation indefinitely under the guise of seeking Presidential intervention, thereby undermining the democratic process at the state level.
The Left party also pointed out that the only potential remedy offered by the Supreme Court’s opinion—limited judicial intervention in cases of prolonged gubernatorial inaction—is vague and ambiguous. The court did not define what constitutes “prolonged” delay, leaving the door open for continued discretionary stalling without clear timelines or accountability. This ambiguity, according to CPI(M), means that arbitrary decisions by Governors cannot be effectively challenged or checked, further weakening the constitutional balance between the Centre and the states.
CPI(M) framed the Supreme Court’s advisory as a setback that will embolden Governors to continue acting in a politically motivated manner, especially in states where the ruling party at the Centre differs from the state government. The party’s concern is rooted in the historical context where Governors, often appointed by the central government, have been accused of overstepping their constitutional roles and interfering in the functioning of state governments, particularly in opposition-ruled states.
The issue of Governors’ discretionary powers has long been a subject of debate in Indian constitutional law. Article 200 of the Constitution grants Governors the power to grant assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature, with options to either give assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President. However, the Constitution does not explicitly specify timelines or precise procedures for these actions, leaving considerable scope for interpretation and discretion. This has occasionally led to political controversies and conflicts between state governments and Governors, particularly when the latter are perceived to be acting under the influence of the central government.
The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion sought to clarify these powers but stopped short of imposing any mandatory deadlines or procedural constraints on Governors. By stating that Governors have discretionary powers but cannot hold onto Bills “for perpetuity,” the court attempted to strike a balance between allowing some discretion and preventing indefinite delays. Nonetheless, the absence of concrete timelines or definitions of “prolonged” delay has left room for ongoing disputes and potential misuse.
In sum, the CPI(M)’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion reflects broader concerns about the erosion of federal principles and the over-centralization of power in the Indian polity. The Left