Author: Ralph Anand L, School of Excellence in Law, TNDALU, Chennai
To the Point:
The Supreme Court in its recent verdict in the case of State of Tamilnadu V. Union of India made a historical proclamation reining the questionable powers of the governor in passing legislative bills. Boasting the principles of constitution and upholding Federalistic structure in the country is questioned at many instances especially in the case where governors delayed assent to bills, stalling key legislative initiatives. The Supreme Court took over the matter when a writ was filed by the Government of Tamilnadu and held that the governor’s power is from the constitution and he is considered to be a constitutional head. Further the apex court noted that the Governors are not equipped with the power of pocket veto by constitution hence cannot hold a legislative bill indefinitely. This article aims to address the issue brought by the Government of Tamilnadu on the inactiveness of the governor and principles influenced in deciding the case.
Abstract:
The Constitution of India boasts the country to be a Secular, Democratic and Republic state. It also upholds numerous key principles triumphing equality and social justice. India though being a Federalist in writing, it is Quasi-Federal in its activities. This illustrates that though there is a center-state relationship, in certain cases, the center acts supreme and the states are expected to abide to this supreme. This center-state relationship is not always smooth as disputes arise often. Governors, who are an instrument of Union government sometimes act ultra vires to the constitution to curtail state government activities. Recently the Supreme Court observed this issue in the case of State of Tamilnadu V. Union of India. This article discusses upon the core legal principles questioned and discussed in the petition along with relevant citied caselaws both by the petitioners and respondents.
Legal Jargons:
This case involved in discussing many legal jargons which were used in the provisions of the constitution. The case majorly revolved around the governor’s power to assent the bill. Article 200 of the Constitution of India was questioned since the then governor’s actions were ultra-vires. The court emphasized the term ‘Pocket Veto’ and stated that the constitution does not empower the governors’, power of pocket veto and deemed it unconstitutional. The court recognized the principle of Federalism enshrined in the constitution and noted that there lacked a constitutional morality in the its functioning. Reconsideration of bill is a mechanism laid down by the constitution where it restricts the abuse of power by the governor’s paving way for the legislature to re-assess the bill sent back from the governor and after making required changes, the bill will be passed except Money Bills.
The Proof:
The Timeline of this case starts with the passing of 13 bills in the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly between November 2020 and April 2023. Of these, 10 were withheld or returned by the Governor without timely communication. When the Assembly re-passed the bills, the Governor reserved them for the President instead of giving assent. The State Government filed a writ petition challenging this inaction. The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor’s prolonged silence and subsequent reservation of re-enacted bills was unconstitutional. In doing so, the court exercised its powers under Article 142, which enables it to pass necessary orders for complete justice. The Court emphasized that while no specific timeline is prescribed in Articles 200 or 201, the Governor and President cannot exercise a “Pocket Veto” by indefinitely delaying assent. If they do, the State can approach courts under writ of mandamus, compelling a public authority to do his lawful duty.
The judgment clarified key principles:
Under Article 200, the Governor can either assent, withhold assent, return the bill, or reserve it for the President (only once and only in specific cases).
If a bill is returned and re-passed by the Assembly, the Governor must give assent. He cannot reserve it for the President again unless the re-passed bill is materially different from the original.
Bills can be reserved for the President in the first instance if they:
Derogate High Court powers.
Require President’s assent for constitutional immunity (e.g., under Articles 31A or 31C).
Involve taxation under Article 288 or provisions under Article 207 during a financial emergency.
Conflict with Union laws under the Concurrent List [Article 254(2)].
Impose restrictions on inter-State trade [Article 304(b)].
The court further held that If the Governor acts contrary to ministerial advice and reserves the bill for the President, the State Government can challenge it. Further, if the President withholds assent, that too can be challenged in court.
The Court noted that when a Governor reserves a bill citing unconstitutionality, the President should seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143. While not binding, the Court’s advisory opinion holds strong persuasive value and should be followed unless there are valid policy reasons for deviation.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s verdict in State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (2025) is a landmark reaffirmation of principles laid down in Indian Constitution. By decisively curbing the misuse of individual discretionary power of governors, the Court has upheld the federal structure and safeguarded legislative supremacy at the state level. The Apex court in its judgement clarified that governors are not independent centres of power but are bound by constitutional mandates and ministerial advice. This decision not only reinforces constitutional morality but also ensures that legislative processes are not stifled by executive inaction. The Supreme court has timely reasserted its role as the guardian of the constitution, ensuring a balance of power between the Centre and the State.
Caselaws:
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45
The State of Bihar brought an act called Bihar Finance Act, 1981 which had imposed sales tax on essential pharmaceutical drugs. The Petitioners challenged the act as it was contradicting The Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979 issued by the Union government. The issue which arouse in this case was whether the Bihar Finance Act is repugnant and did the President’s assent under Article 254(2) validated such repugnant state law. The Supreme Court held that taxation and price control are distinct matters under the Constitution and there was no repugnancy.
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 1974 AIR 2192
The case dealt with the scope of powers of the Governor and President and whether they could act independently without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The 7-Judge Bench held that President and Governor are constitutional heads, and must act on the advice of their Council of Ministers (Articles 74 & 163). The court made it clear that Discretionary powers are extremely limited, and the real executive authority lies with the elected government. This case laid the foundation of the “aid and advice” doctrine, emphasizing parliamentary democracy
Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. v. National Textile Corporation Ltd., (2002) 8 SCC 182
A dispute arose regarding the acquisition of property under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, passed by Parliament. The State of Maharashtra later passed an amendment to a related law which was inconsistent with the Central law, claiming to have received Presidential assent. The issue revolved around validity of president’s assent being justiciable or entirely political. The Court held that once Presidential assent is granted, its validity cannot be questioned in court based on procedural irregularities or political considerations. During circumstances where there is no assent or if the Governor withholds assent or reserves a bill without justification, that inaction or misuse of discretion is justiciable.
F&Q:
What was the core issue in State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (2025)?
The key issue was the inaction of the Governor of Tamil Nadu in providing timely assent to bills passed by the State Legislature. The Government of Tamilnadu approached the Supreme Court for the same where the court held governor’s action as unconstitutional.
What constitutional provisions were under scrutiny in this case?
Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which outline the Governor’s powers regarding assent to bills were inferred by the apex court. Also, Article 142, which allowed the Supreme Court to deliver complete justice, was crucial in the case.
What is a ‘Pocket Veto
A Pocket Veto refers to the indefinite withholding of assent to a bill without communication. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not permit such indefinite delays and deemed this practice unconstitutional.
Under what circumstances can a bill be reserved for the President?
A Bill maybe reserved by the governor for president’s assent if they, Affect High Court powers,
Require constitutional immunity (Articles 31A/31C)
Impose taxes needing presidential assent (Article 288)
Conflict with Union laws (Article 254(2))
Restrict inter-State trade (Article 304(b))
