Author: Nyasa Tahim, a student of Vivekananda Institute of professional studies, IPU.
ABSTRACT
The Supreme Court of India in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 8, 2025) delivered a landmark ruling clarifying the constitutional role of the Governor in the legislative process under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to state bills, nor exercise discretion beyond the options explicitly provided in the Constitution. By declaring the prolonged delay and subsequent referral of ten re-passed bills to the President as unconstitutional, the Court reinforced the principle that the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Importantly, the judgment emphasized that there is no scope for a “pocket veto” in Indian constitutional law and that timely action on bills is essential for upholding democratic governance. The ruling also outlined clear timelines for the Governor’s response, thereby enhancing legislative efficiency and accountability. While strengthening democratic principles and the rule of law, the decision simultaneously raised questions on the extent of judicial intervention in constitutional offices.
INTRODUCTION
The hon’ble Supreme Court delivered a judgment on April 8, 2025 in State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and anr, which clarified that Governors must act on state bills in a time-bound manner, following the aid and advice of the council of ministers, as per Article 200, without independent discretion. State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and anr is an important judgment in relation to the powers vested upon governor in matters of giving assent to the bills.
The case dealt with the Governor’s delay in approving 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, which the hon’ble Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional. The hon’ble court clarified that the Governor must follow advice of the State Council of Ministers and cannot withhold assent to bills for an indefinite period. This ruling emphasized the importance of accountability and timely action in governance, key principles of administrative law. The hon’ble Court set clear timelines for the Governor to act, ensuring that constitutional processes are respected and that executive powers are used in an efficient manner. Thus, State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and anr can be considered as a case of judicial review that helped in reinforcing the idea that public authorities must act within the rule of law.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- The Tamil Nadu state Legislative Assembly had passed ten bills and sent them to the Governor for assent under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution.
- Timely actions were not taken by the Governor of Tamil Nadu for a prolonged period of time. And the Governor withheld assent to 10 bills without providing any specific reasons. The 10 bills were re-passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly and sent to the Governor on 18.11.2023 again. Instead of granting assent, the Governor reserved all 10 re-passed bills for the President’s consideration.
- A writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 1239 of 2023) was filed by State of Tamil Nadu in the hon’ble Supreme Court, challenging the Governor’s actions.
ISSUES RAISED
The main issues raised in the case were
- What can the Governor do under Article 200 when a Bill is sent for his approval? What are the powers vested upon the governor under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution?
This part explores the Governor’s options when a bill is passed by the State Legislature. Furthermore, Can the Governor reserve a bill for the President after it is re-passed by the State Legislature?
Or Can the Governor reserve a bill for the President’s assent when he had already withheld assent the first time, and the bill is now presented again after being re-passed?
- The second issue raised in the case was whether there a time limit for the Governor to act under Article 200 of the Indian constitution? What does “as soon as possible” in the Constitution mean because there is no wider explanation to the terms used under the section?
- The third issue raised was whether the Governor is bound to act on the advice of the State Government?
- The fourth issue was whether the Governor’s and President’s decisions under Article 200/201 of the Indian constitution subject to judicial review? Or Can the President’s refusal to approve a bill under Article 201 of the Indian constitution be challenged in court? And even if review is allowed, how far can the courts go in examining such decisions?
- The last issue at hand was how should the President act when a bill is sent under Article 201 of the Indian Constitution?
JUDGMENT
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court gave a judgment on the matter of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu. It ruled that the Governor had acted wrongly by withholding assent to 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu state Assembly and later sending them to the President after they were re-passed. The hon’ble court held his actions unconstitutional.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, pronounced the judgment, and made it clear that the Governor is not vested upon with unlimited powers. Under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, the Governor can either approve a bill, or send it back to the Assembly, or reserve it for the President but he cannot reserve it after it has been passed again unless there are major changes required. It was held by the hon’ble court that there is no concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” under Article 200 of the Indian constitution and stated that governors cannot delay action on bills without giving any specific reason.
Further, the hon’ble court held that if a Governor wants to withhold assent, S/he must return the bill for reconsideration. To prevent delays in the future, certain timelines have been set by the hon’ble court describing the amount of time limit vested upon a governor to act.
Furthermore, the hon’ble court held that the Governor is bound to follow the advice of the elected State Government, and he isn’t a power centre on his own.
CONCLUSION
The hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling on the Governor’s and President’s role in the assent process strengthens democratic accountability but raises concerns about judicial overreach and the separation of powers. It was able enhance legislative efficiency, but on the other hand it is crucial to balance accountability with the independence of constitutional offices as well. The hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the principle that executive actions, in this matter, the Governor, must be exercised in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, ensuring accountability in this democratic setup. Clear timelines have been set for action and emphasizing the need for timely assent to bills, the hon’ble court has strengthened the principle of rule of law and reinforced the balance of power between the two organs of the government; legislature and the executive. Furthermore, this case highlights the necessity of an accountable system that respects constitutional norms and protects the democratic framework of the country.
FAQS
Q1. What was the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) about?
Answer:
The case dealt with the Governor of Tamil Nadu withholding assent to ten bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and later reserving them for the President’s consideration even after they were re-passed. The State challenged this action before the Supreme Court, arguing it was unconstitutional.
Q2. What were the main facts of the case?
Answer:
- The Tamil Nadu Assembly passed 10 bills and sent them to the Governor for assent under Article 200.
- The Governor delayed action and withheld assent without providing reasons.
- On 18.11.2023, the Assembly re-passed all 10 bills and sent them again.
- Instead of assenting, the Governor reserved them for the President’s consideration.
- The State filed W.P. (C) No. 1239/2023 in the Supreme Court.
Q3. What were the key issues raised in the case?
Answer:
- What are the powers of the Governor under Article 200 regarding assent to bills?
- Can the Governor reserve a bill for the President after it has been re-passed by the State Legislature?
- Is there a time limit for the Governor’s action under Article 200, and what does “as soon as possible” mean?
- Is the Governor bound to act on the advice of the State Government?
- Are the Governor’s and President’s decisions under Articles 200/201 subject to judicial review, and if so, to what extent?
- How should the President act when a bill is sent under Article 201?
Q4. What did the Supreme Court hold in its judgment (April 8, 2025)?
Answer:
- The Governor acted unconstitutionally by withholding assent and later reserving re-passed bills for the President.
- Under Article 200, the Governor may assent, withhold assent (by returning the bill), or reserve it for the President. However, once re-passed, he must give assent unless there are major constitutional concerns.
- There is no concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” in India.
- Governors cannot indefinitely delay bills; timelines must be adhered to.
- The Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot function as an independent authority.
Q5. What timelines did the Court prescribe for Governors under Article 200?
Answer:
The Court held that Governors must act within a reasonable and specific time frame to prevent misuse of discretion. While the judgment did not fix rigid days universally, it mandated that delays cannot be indefinite and action must follow “as soon as possible,” now interpreted as within a binding timeframe.
Reference
W.Pf. (C) No. 1239 of 2023
