In recent years, the role of governors in India has come under intense scrutiny, with their actions—or inactions—sparking constitutional debates and political controversies. As appointees of the Union government serving as titular heads of states, governors occupy a unique position in India’s federal structure. However, when their conduct oversteps constitutional boundaries, the Supreme Court of India steps in as the ultimate arbiter, reinforcing the delicate balance between the Union government and the States. The significance of the Supreme Court’s judgments on governors cannot be overstated—they serve as a bulwark against the misuse of power, uphold democratic principles, and ensure that federalism, a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, remains intact.

One of the most critical areas where the Supreme Court has intervened is the governor’s role in the legislative process. Governors are constitutionally mandated to act on bills passed by state legislatures, either by granting assent, withholding it with reasons, or referring them to the President. However, delays or arbitrary refusals to act have become a recurring issue, particularly in states ruled by opposition parties. A landmark judgment in this context came on November 10, 2023, when the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Punjab government that governors cannot withhold assent to bills by questioning the validity of legislative sessions. More recently, on April 7, 2025, the Court delivered a stinging rebuke to Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for “sitting on bills,” calling his delays illegal and a roadblock to the state’s legislative autonomy. Earlier, the Court’s May 11, 2023, ruling in the Maharashtra political crisis declared then-Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari’s call for a floor test illegal, as it lacked objective material to justify doubting the government’s majority.

These judicial interventions are crucial for several reasons. First, they protect the sovereignty of state legislatures, which represent the will of the people. When governors, often perceived as agents of the Union government, delay or derail state laws, it undermines the federal structure and erodes public trust in democratic institutions. Second, the Supreme Court’s rulings establish clear precedents, reducing ambiguity around the governor’s role. For instance, the Court has emphasized that governors must act by the Constitution, not political considerations—a sentiment echoed in its April 7, 2025, observation that a governor should be a “friend, philosopher, and guide,” not a partisan actor. Third, these judgments curb the potential for executive overreach by the Union government, which appoints governors, ensuring that the office does not become a weapon to destabilize opposition-ruled states.

The Supreme Court rulings underscore a vital principle: governors must act as facilitators, not inhibitors, of state governance; they are not omnipotent figures but ceremonial heads bound by constitutional propriety and the advice of elected state governments. The broader implications of these rulings resonate in India’s evolving democracy. With federal tensions rising—exemplified by states like Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Kerala repeatedly clashing with their governors—the Supreme Court’s role as a guardian of constitutional norms has never been more critical. Its judgments not only resolve immediate disputes but also shape the future conduct of governors, compelling them to adhere to their constitutional oath rather than political loyalties.

Critics might argue that the Supreme Court’s frequent interventions signal a systemic flaw—why do governors repeatedly test constitutional limits? The answer lies partly in the office’s lack of explicit accountability mechanisms, leaving the judiciary as the primary check. Yet, this judicial vigilance is a strength, not a weakness, of India’s democracy. By consistently reinforcing the principles of federalism, accountability, and the rule of law, the Supreme Court ensures that governors remain figureheads, not power centres. The Supreme Court’s judgments on governors testify to its role as the Constitution’s sentinel. They remind us that in a democracy, no office—however exalted—can override the will of the people or the framework that binds India together. These rulings are not just legal milestones but democratic lifelines, preserving the essence of India’s unity in diversity.