Author: Sreenidi R.N, Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
To the Point
This case arose out of the prolonged inaction by the Governor of Tamil Nadu regarding 12 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Despite having received these bills, the Governor neither granted assent, nor returned them with a message, nor reserved them for the President in a timely manner. Specifically, 10 bills were withheld without any explanation, while 2 were reserved for Presidential consideration under Article 200. This delay created a legislative deadlock and raised serious constitutional concerns about the abuse of gubernatorial discretion. Consequently, the State Government approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, asserting a violation of federal principles and democratic functioning. The Court’s verdict established that the Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely and is constitutionally obligated to act within a reasonable timeframe. It further prescribed strict timelines for governors action and, invoking Article 142, declared that all ten pending bills are to be deemed as having received assent.
Abstract
The 2025 Supreme Court ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu substantially changed how the governor’s authority is interpreted under Articles 200 and 201. The Court held that indefinitely withholding assent of to bills, which is often called a “pocket veto”, is unconstitutional. By prescribing definitive timelines and recognizing the supremacy of the State Legislature’s mandate, the judgment strikes a firm blow to executive arbitrariness and restores a more harmonious balance in Centre-State relations. This article analyzes the judgment in detail, explores the legal framework, addresses its precedents, and evaluates the implications of the Court’s use of Article 142 to deem assent to the impugned bills.
Use of Legal Jargon
Article 200: Power of the Governor to assent to bills
Article 201: Bills reserved for the President to review.
Article 154: Executive power of the State is vested in the Governor but exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers
Article 163: Governor acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in certain matters where the discretion is expressly provided
Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies (used by Tamil Nadu to approach SC)
Article 142: The Apex Court’s power to do complete justice.
Article 143: The President’s right to seek advisory guidance from the Supreme Court.
The Proof (Background and Legal Issue)
Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed 12 bills addressing various subjects such as education reform, anti-corruption measures, and state administrative procedures. The bills were subsequently sent to Tamil Nadu’s Governor, R.N. Ravi, for his approval. However, the Governor delayed action on these bills for extended periods. Eventually:
10 bills were withheld without reason or message under Article 200.
2 bills were reserved for the President under Article 200 Proviso.
No bills were returned for reconsideration within a reasonable period.
This in turn led to a constitutional deadlock, which undermined the mandate of the elected Assembly. The State then filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, invoking Article 32 to enforce the Governor’s constitutional duty.
The legal issues which were raised before the Court were:
Whether the Governor can withhold assent indefinitely under Article 200.
Whether judicial review lies over the Governor’s inaction.
Whether the Supreme Court determines that assent has been given to the bills in accordance with Article 142.
Case Analysis
The judgment delivered by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan comprehensively addressed the constitutional position of the Governor in relation to the State Legislature. The key findings include:
Pocket Veto is Unconstitutional:
The Governor has no power to stall legislation indefinitely.
Constitutional silence does not imply discretion to delay action perpetually.
The Governor must exercise one of the three options under Article 200 within a reasonable time: assent, withhold, or reserve for President.
Limited Discretion of Governor:
The Governor must follow the guidance provided by the Council of Ministers as specified in Article 163.
Discretion exists only in narrowly defined cases such as High Court appointments, reserved for the President.
In re-passed bills, the Governor must mandatorily grant assent.
Timelines for Assent:
Bills must be assented to, withheld, or returned within 1 month.
If not in consonance with ministerial advice, they must be returned with explanation within 3 months.
If the Assembly re-passes a returned bill, the Governor shall assent within 1 month.
Judicial Review and Article 142:
The inaction of the Governor is justiciable.
The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to deem all 10 pending bills as having received assent.
This was a necessary step to uphold constitutional governance and prevent breakdown of legislative functioning.
Relevant Case Laws
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
This judgement established the principle that the President and the Governor, except in some limited circumstances, are required to act on the advice of their respective Councils of Ministers. The Supreme Court clarified that the Governor is not of independent power but must function as a constitutional head.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
This case discusses the Governors power to summon, prorogue, and dissolve the legislative assembly, and establishes that these powers are also largely to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and are subject to judicial review. This establishes that if a governors legislative functioning is arbitrary or unconstitutional, it is not beyond judicial scrutiny.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
This landmark nine-judge bench judgment profoundly shaped the understanding of Indian federalism and the misuse of Article 356, which deals with President’s Rule. It established the fact that the President’s power to dismiss state governments is not absolute and is subject to judicial review, and that reports recommending President’s Rule are also reviewable. This judgement reinforces the idea that constitutional functionaries, including Governors, are not immune from judicial oversight when their actions impact the federal structure and democratic governance.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of State of Tamil Nadu versus Governor of Tamil Nadu represents an important milestone. It reaffirms the principle that unelected constitutional functionaries must not subvert the democratic will. By striking down the practice of indefinite withholding of assent, the Court has reinstated the Assembly’s role as the primary law-making body in a parliamentary democracy.
The verdict also paves the way for future litigation, especially in other states facing similar deadlocks. Importantly, the invocation of Article 142 as a remedial tool reasserts the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional morality. The judgment represents a significant recalibration of powers between constitutional authorities and enhances accountability in governance.
FAQS
Q1: What is the main issue in the Tamil Nadu Governor case?
A: The case revolved around the Governor’s indefinite inaction on state bills passed by the legislature, which the Court found unconstitutional.
Q2: What is a “pocket veto”?
A: It is a term used when the Governor does not take any action (neither assent nor rejection) on a bill indefinitely, effectively stalling the legislative process.
Q3: Can the Governor reject a re-passed bill?
A: No. Once a bill is returned and re-passed by the legislature, the Governor is constitutionally mandated to assent to it.
Q4: Is the Governor’s discretion absolute?
A: No. The Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, barring rare exceptions.
Q5: How was Article 142 used in this case?
A: Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to do complete justice in any matter. In this case, it was used to deem that the 10 bills had received assent.
Q6: Can the judgment be overturned?
A: It can only be overturned by a larger bench of the Supreme Court or through a constitutional amendment, both of which are complex and politically sensitive.
Q7: Has the President responded to this judgment?
A: A Presidential Reference under Article 143 has been reportedly initiated to seek clarity on whether the Supreme Court can fix timelines for constitutional authorities.
Q8: Why is this case significant?
A: This case affirms that the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent, or utilize his power for pocket veto, or reserve bills which have been re-passed for presidential review, and must act within a fixed amount of time on the advice of the council of ministers. It reinforces the supremacy of the legislative and prevents constitutional delays. It re emphasizes the governor’s role as facilitators.
