Author: Urmika Manjrekar a student at G J Advani Law College, Mumbai, Maharashtra
Introduction
For several months, a constitutional deadlock persisted in the State of Tamil Nadu, wherein twelve Bills, duly passed by the State Legislative Assembly, remained pending without any action on the part of the Hon’ble Governor. No reasons were assigned, no timelines indicated—only a conspicuous and protracted silence.
That silence has now been authoritatively addressed by the Supreme Court of India.
In Governor of Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically affirmed that the Governor is not an independent entity separate from the elected government, but a constitutional officeholder obligated to operate within the framework of the Constitution and safeguard democratic principles.
In a powerfully reasoned verdict delivered on 8 April 2025, the Court articulated a pivotal constitutional principle: while the Governor’s position extends beyond a purely ceremonial role, it does not confer unrestricted discretion.
The decision not only resolved the immediate impasse in Tamil Nadu but also delineated the constitutional contours of gubernatorial conduct applicable to all States within the Union of India.
Abstract
This case emerges from a persistent constitutional standoff between the Tamil Nadu administration, under the leadership of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and the Hon’ble Governor, R.N. Ravi.
From January 2020 to April 2023, the Governor refused assent to multiple Bills passed by the State Legislature, resulting in a constitutional impasse that eventually prompted judicial intervention. Between November 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly enacted thirteen Bills, of which ten were either withheld or returned by the Governor without furnishing any reasons or engaging in meaningful communication. Notably, upon the legislature’s reiteration of these Bills without substantive amendments, the Governor declined to grant assent and instead reserved them for the consideration of the President—a course of action subsequently adjudged unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is empowered with four possible courses of action upon receiving a Bill that has been passed by the State Legislature.
Upon receipt of a Bill duly passed by the State Legislature, the Governor is constitutionally empowered to either grant assent, thereby enacting it into law, or withhold assent. In the case of non-Money Bills, if the Governor chooses to withhold assent, the Constitution requires that the Bill be sent back to the Legislature along with a message urging reconsideration. Should the Legislature pass the Bill again—whether amended or not—the Governor is then constitutionally bound to give assent.The Governor is constitutionally mandated to grant assent within a stipulated timeframe, as outlined in Article 200 of the Indian Constitution.(iii)Forward the Bill to the President, particularly if the Bill may derogate from the powers of the High Court or has broader constitutional implications.
However, the Article is silent as to any prescribed timeframe for the exercise of such discretion, thereby giving rise to interpretative ambiguity. The Supreme Court has now authoritatively held that such silence cannot be construed so as to permit indefinite delay or the misuse of gubernatorial discretion.
Exercising its plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, in an unprecedented assertion of judicial authority, mandated the enforcement of ten Bills on April 8, 2025 – including seven enactments that had previously been withheld assent by the President of India.
This significant judicial involvement has revived debates on the separation of powers and the risk of courts exceeding their constitutional limits.
The judgment unequivocally holds that the Governor acted without bona fide intent and constituted a violation of constitutional norms and obligations. The Court castigated the Governor’s conduct as obstructionist, holding it to be inconsistent with the principles of federalism, constitutional morality, and the supremacy of democratic legislative processes.The judgment of the Supreme Court carries significant implications, particularly in redefining the constitutional boundaries of the Governor’s authority and strengthening the federal structure within India’s democratic system.
Discretionary Powers Under Article 200: A Constitutional Examination
In this context, it becomes imperative to examine the constitutional foundation that governs the exercise of gubernatorial discretion. Under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, when a Bill passed by the State Legislature is presented to the Governor, they may choose to grant assent, withhold it,or transmit the Bill to the President for subsequent consideration.
1. Granting Assent
When the Governor grants assent to the Bill, it becomes law and is promulgated as such. The Governor’s assent is a formality after the Bill has passed the State Legislature.Upon receiving assent, the Bill attains the status of law and becomes legally binding.
2. Withholding Assent
The Governor, in exercising his discretion, may withhold sanction of the Bill.While withholding assent is an exercise of constitutional authority, it is expected to be done judiciously, considering the broader public interest and constitutional framework.
3. Reservation of the Bill
The Governor, in the exercise of his discretionary authority, may reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President.This action may be taken if the Bill pertains to matters under the Union List or if the Governor deems it necessary to seek Presidential approval, particularly when the Bill raises concerns regarding national interests or constitutional compatibility. This use of discretionary powers by the Governor can have significant constitutional implications, particularly when it intersects with the judicial functions outlined in Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.
Examining the significance and application of Article 142 in the Indian Constitution
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court with wide-ranging discretionary authority to pass decrees or directives essential for delivering full justice in any matter before it. This provision allows the Court to go beyond the strict interpretation of laws, addressing gaps or ambiguities in existing statutes to achieve fair resolutions.
Additionally, orders and decrees issued under Article 142 are binding across India, with enforcement carried out through Parliament or Presidential action. The Article also grants the Court the authority to summon individuals, compel document production, and initiate contempt proceedings.In this way, Article 142 serves as a constitutional safeguard, enabling the judiciary to uphold justice even in the absence of explicit legislative provisions.
Supreme Court’s Invocation of Article 142: A Constitutional Safety Valve
The analysis commences with a summary of the factual matrix and judicial findings, followed by an examination of the relevant constitutional provisions—principally Articles 200, 201, and 163 of the Constitution of India. Article 163 provides for a Council of Ministers, led by the Chief Minister, to aid and advise the Governor, save in matters where the Constitution permits the Governor to act in their discretion. In an extraordinary and unprecedented exercise of its powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court directed that ten Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly be are deemed to have been assented to by the Governor as of November 2023, the date on which they were resubmitted after reconsideration.Through this judicial declaration, the Court effectively accorded retrospective legal validity to the Bills, notwithstanding the absence of formal assent from either the Governor or the President. As a result, the acts of the President in rejecting seven of these Bills and withholding assent to two others were rendered null and void.
Further, the Court’s intervention extended beyond the immediate controversy.To prevent similar constitutional deadlocks in the future, the Court laid down binding directives establishing clear timelines for actions by the Governor—and by extension, the President—under Articles 200 and 201. Article 201 stipulates that when a Bill is submitted for the President’s consideration, they are required to either give their assent or withhold it.The Court held that indefinite inaction or the exercise of a “pocket veto” by constitutional functionaries is antithetical to the principles of representative democracy, and that the Constitution must be interpreted as mandating expeditious decision-making in respect of state legislation.
The Supreme Court’s Judgment on Gubernatorial Assent: Key Directives and Constitutional Principles
Prompt Action on Bills:
The Court held that Governors must act on bills promptly, either assenting, withholding, or reserving them. Governors are required to act “forthwith,” and no later than one month when acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The practice of “pocket veto” was declared unconstitutional, with the phrase “shall declare” in Article 200 interpreted to mandate action within a reasonable timeframe.
Withholding Assent and the Requirement for Return with a Message:
The Court emphasized that withholding assent is intrinsically linked to the return-and-reconsideration procedure under Article 200’s first proviso. Governors must return bills with a reconsideration message before withholding assent, allowing the legislature to address the Governor’s concerns.
Re-passed Bills and the Bar on Reservation:
The judgment clarified that once a bill is repassed by the legislature after being returned, the Governor is prohibited from reserving the bill for the President. The Court held that the text “shall not withhold assent” created a mandatory assent obligation, barring further gubernatorial resistance unless the bill has materially changed.
Deemed Assent under Article 142:
The Court cited Article 142 to declare that the bills had already received approval. The bills were declared to have been assented to as of 18 November 2023, retroactively enacting them into law. This provided immediate legal effect, allowing the state government to act as though the Governor had signed the bills at that time.
Judicial Timelines for Future Cases:
To prevent future standoffs, the Court established specific timelines within which Governors and the President must act on bills. These timelines, although not found in the Constitution, were set as judicial standards.
Reaffirmation of the Aid and Advice Principle:
The Court reiterated that Governors must follow the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when making decisions regarding assent.Discretionary actions by the Governor are only allowed in explicitly permitted circumstances and can be reviewed if deemed unconstitutional or malafide.
Overruling Contrary Precedents:
The Court overruled past judgments, particularly the 2019 B.K. Pavitra case, which suggested that Governors had unfettered discretion in reserving bills. The Court clarified that Governors are not to act as political counterweights to the elected government, aligning the law with the principle that India is a Republic and Governors are not super-legislators.
Judicial Interventions in Gubernatorial Actions: A Case Law Overview
1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Key Facts: This case curtailed the arbitrary use of Article 356 and reinforced federalism by ensuring that the dismissal of elected state governments is based on valid grounds.
Issue: Whether the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 can be subjected to judicial review.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the power under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. It ruled that President’s Rule cannot be imposed arbitrarily and must be based on relevant material, not mere whim or political considerations.
2. Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (2006)
Key Facts: The case reinforced that Governors must act within constitutional limits and cannot preemptively dissolve legislative bodies without clear, objective reasons.
Issue: Constitutionality of the Governor’s dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly before it convened.
Judgment: The Court found the Governor’s recommendation to dissolve the Assembly unconstitutional, as it was based on assumptions rather than objective material.
3. State of Punjab v. Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023)
Key Facts: This case reasserted that the Governor must respect the legislative process and act promptly on bills, reinforcing the need for executive accountability in state governance.
Issue: Whether the Governor’s refusal to summon the Punjab Legislative Assembly and delay in granting assent to bills was constitutional.
Judgment: The Court held that the Governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot delay assent to bills for an indefinite period.
4. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
Key Facts: The case reasserted that the Governor’s discretion to reserve bills or withhold assent is not absolute and must be exercised in line with the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in circumstances expressly provided for by the Constitution.This ruling has important implications for the Governor’s role in legislative matters, especially when it comes to the timely assent to bills.
Issue: Whether the Governor’s actions under Article 167 (to withhold assent or reserve a bill) can be exercised arbitrarily or must be based on sound constitutional principles.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, subject to certain constitutional exceptions. The Court also emphasized that the Governor’s discretion should not be used arbitrarily, particularly in relation to bills presented for assent.
5. Shiv Sena v. Union of India (2023)
Key Facts: This case clarified the limits of the Governor’s discretion in matters of intra-party disputes and political dynamics, especially in the context of the functioning of a state legislature.
Issue: Whether the Governor’s call for a floor test in Maharashtra amid internal party disputes was constitutional.
Judgment: The Court found that the Governor’s decision to call for a floor test was unjustified and without constitutional basis, as it interfered with intra-party matters.
Conclusion
In summary, the Supreme Court held that the Tamil Nadu Governor’s actions—both the delay in granting assent and the reservation following repassage—were unconstitutional, thereby affirming the authority of the state legislature. In its decision, the Court reexamined Article 200, clarifying that Governors are barred from employing an endless “pocket veto” or exercising an absolute veto. It required that Governors act expeditiously and in line with the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in a few narrowly defined instances. Moreover, once a bill is reapproved by the legislature, the Governor is obligated to grant assent unless the bill has been substantially modified—a circumstance not present in this case.
While this outcome was lauded as reinforcing democratic governance at the state level, it also raised concerns about judicial overreach. By effectively assuming the function of granting assent and imposing judicially crafted timelines, the Supreme Court ventured into areas traditionally reserved for the executive, thereby challenging the conventional separation of powers. Ultimately, the judgment represents a bold chapter in India’s constitutional evolution, underscoring that no office is above constitutional accountability while simultaneously inviting further scrutiny of the limits of judicial intervention.
FAQS
What is a floor test?
A floor test is a parliamentary procedure whereby the incumbent government, alleged to have lost its majority, is required to prove its confidence in the House. The Chief Minister must secure a majority of the members present and voting to pass the vote of confidence.
What is Article 356 of the Constitution of India?
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution provides for the imposition of President’s Rule in the event of a breakdown of constitutional machinery in a State. It empowers the President to assume direct control over the State’s administration, including the dissolution of the State Government and its Legislature.
What is ‘pocket veto’?
A pocket veto is a constitutional mechanism through which the President may indirectly veto a bill by taking no action within the prescribed timeframe, particularly when the legislature is not in session. In such cases, the bill lapses without the need for a formal veto.
