Author: Luxen I, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai
CASE TITLE : STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU
CITATION : 2025 INSC 481
TO THE POINT
This significant case centers on an extraordinary constitutional conflict between the Government of Tamil Nadu and its Governor, emphasizing critical matters concerning federalism, the Governor’s discretion, and democratic responsibility. The Tamil Nadu Government approached the Supreme court and claimed there arise a prolonged inaction and unwanted interference by the Governor in crucial matters relating to governance. The most debated concern was that of the Governor’s choice of denying assent to 10 bills approved by the state legislature and, after they were re-passed without any changes, reserve them for the evaluation of the President- an action the state argued was both unconstitutional and malafide intention. The petition was also challenged the Governor’s delays in permitting prosecutions of the public officials, in approving documents for the early release of the prisoners, and in appointing the members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. In addition to these tensions, the Governor declined to swear in Dr. K. Ponmudy as a Minister despite the Supreme court staying his conviction citing “Constitutional Morality” instead of a binding judicial directive. The case looked at how much discretion the governor has under Articles 200 and 201, and It also examined that whether such powers are bound by the advice of the council of ministers and are subject to judicial review. Ultimately, the Supreme Court had to consider whether the role of the constitution is intended to act as a neutral connection between the centre and the state could potentially be exploited to undermine the legislative and executive authority of an elected government. This judgement holds significant consequences for Centre-state relationships and the function of Governors within Indian parliamentary system.
ABSTRACT
In this case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), there arise a major constitutional conflict between an elected state government and the Governor’s office. The supreme court looked various issues including refusal to follow the cabinet recommendations, interference in the executive function of the government and the delays in giving assent to the bills passed by the state legislature. The court re-affirmed the importance of federal and democratic values by ruling that the Governor cannot paralyze the government through inaction or a unilateral discretion. The Governor should operate within the constitutional limits with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The use of legal terminology in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu is filled with constitutional language and complex legal significance. The state claimed that the Governor’s actions are amounted to “Pocket Veto,” which refers to indefinite inaction on legislative initiatives without rejecting explicitly. The petition mainly focuses on how Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution should be interpreted.
According to Article 200(1), which requires procedural conformity when a bill is returned, was analyzed by the court to determine if the Governor simply withholding the assent of the bill, that is- withholding the assent without sending any message to the legislature and violated the provision. Another word that coming up was “repugnancy,” which was used to support the claim that the state laws did not conflict with union laws in the context of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of the seventh schedule. It is crucial that the question of “mala fide exercise of power” as the state argued that the Governor had evaded judicial review by reserving the repassed bills for president’s approval. It is important to note that the Governor must act in accordance with the west minister model of parliamentary democracy which means that the governor must act in accordance with the “aid and advice of the council of ministers” which became a cornerstone of the constitution. The ruling also cited the judicial review theory which states that even actions taken under the discretionary powers can be challenged if they are determined to be capricious or outside the bounds of the law. These arguments came together and produced a decision with significant federal and constitutional significance.
THE PROOF
The claims of constitutional misconduct against the Governor of Tamil Nadu were not just theoretical but they were backed by a discernible pattern of procrastination, deviation and disregard for established legal procedures. From January 2020 to April 2023, the twelve bills that were approved by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly remained unresolved. It was only after the state lodged a writ petition with the supreme court in October 2023, that the Governor took action by refusing assent to 10 bills and reserving two for the president’s review. Importantly, the governor returned the bills without providing the constitutionally mandated message required under Article 200 and when the Assembly passed the bills again, he once more declined to give assent and instead reserved them for the president’s assent. The court later deemed those acts inconsistent with constitutional requirements. In addition to the bills, several files concerning the authorization for prosecuting public officials under anti-corruption statues, the early release of inmates and appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission were also inexplicably postponed. The situation intensified when the governor declined to swear in Dr. K. Ponmudy as Minister even though the supreme court has suspended his conviction, leading to further intervention from the court. The factual context presented to the court included letters, government documentation, annotations on files, and the Governor’s own communications, all of which demonstrated a persistent pattern of inaction or unilateral decision-making, detached from cabinet counsel. These recorded delays and choices were the foundation of the state’s accusation that the governor had undermined constitutional governance and acted in bad faith.
CASE LAWS
While adjudicating the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, the supreme court grounded its ruling on key constitutional principles that clarify the authorities of governors and the process by which laws are created.
State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab,This is a landmark decision where the court determined that the governor must invoke the proviso of Article 200 by returning a measure to the legislature with a message if he refuses to grant assent to it. This judgement was relevant in the case as the Governor of Tamil Nadu had withheld assent without applying the provison.
Samsher Singh vs State of Punjab, the court reaffirmed that the Governor should act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers and barring a rare exception. This principle is crucial in rejecting the Governor’s independent actions in the Tamil Nadu case.
Nabam Rebia vs Deputy speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Assembly, this case elaborates the limited discretionary powers of the Governor and emphasized constitutional morality in centre-state dynamics.
Union of India vs Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary , The court found that because the governor is the state’s constitutional head, he or she functions under the direction and advice of the council of ministers.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s decision in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu is a significant reaffirmation of constitutional ethics and democratic responsibility. By ruling against extended Governor’s inaction and emphasizing that the Governor must act according to the guidance of the elected State Cabinet, the Court has re-established the equilibrium between constitutional functions and democratic responsibilities. It made it clear that Articles 200 and 201 should not be seen as means for political obstruction but rather as parts of a systematic legislative procedure. This ruling acts as an important precedent, limiting the misuse of discretionary powers and strengthening the federal structure of Indian democracy.
FAQS
Can a Governor can indefinitely delay assent to bills passed by the State legislature?
No. The Supreme Court determined that a Governor is required to act “as soon as possible” according to Article 200. An indefinite delay, often referred to as a “pocket veto,” is not allowed under the Indian Constitution and compromises the foundations of democratic governance.
Is Governor is bound by the advice of the cabinet of ministers while exercising the constitutional powers?
Yes. The Court reiterated that the Governor serves as a constitutional figure and is required to follow the guidance and counsel of the State’s Council of Ministers, particularly regarding the approval of Bills and actions taken under Article 161 (powers of clemency).
Can a Governor reserve a repassed bill for president’s consideration?
No. When a Bill is sent back to the State Legislature, reapproved without changes, and forwarded to the Governor, he is required to give his consent. Holding it for Presidential review at that point breaches Article 200 and undermines the democratic process.
Are Governors decisions are subjected to judicial review?
Yes. The Court indicated that the Governor’s decisions, whether through action or inaction, can be reviewed by the judiciary, particularly if they are deemed arbitrary, in bad faith, or in violation of constitutional requirements.
What was the court’s view in Governor refusing to swear in Dr. K. Ponmudy as a minister?
The Court expressed disapproval of the Governor’s decision, particularly considering that the Supreme Court had stayed Dr. Ponmudy’s conviction. It highlighted that the Governor is obligated to honor judicial rulings and adhere to constitutional processes in making ministerial appointments.
REFERENCE
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/45314/45314_2023_11_1501_60770_Judgement_08-Apr-2025.pdf
https://www.scobserver.in/reports/pendency-of-bills-before-tamil-nadu-governor-judgement-summary/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82729634/
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2025/May/03/supreme-courts-verdict-on-actions-of-governor-a-victory-for-tn-check-on-imperial-excess
