Supreme Court of India, W.P. (C) No. 1239 of 2023
Judgment delivered on 8 April 2025
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.I., J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, J.J
Introduction
The case of State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu is a significant judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court of India on April 8, 2025. The case was concerned with an important constitutional
standoff between the government of the state of Tamil Nadu and Governor R.N. Ravi on the issue of
delay in assent being given by the Governor on bills approved by the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu.
The decision makes clear the extent of the powers of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of
India and has significant implications for India’s federal system and the relationship between state
legislatures and Governors.
Factual Background
The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by the State of Tamil Nadu
challenging the conduct of the Governor of Tamil Nadu in relation to Bills passed by the Legislative
Assembly as well as other constitutional functions.
- Between 13 January 2020 and 28 April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed twelve Bills. These were presented to the Governor for his assent under Article 200.
- The incumbent Governor assumed office on 18 November 2021. Despite the constitutional mandate, he did not act on the Bills for nearly two years.
- On 13 November 2023, the Governor withheld assent to ten Bills, without returning them to the Legislature with a “message” as required by the first proviso to Article 200. The Governor simultaneously reserved two other Bills for the consideration of the President of India under Article 200 read with Article 201.
- The Legislative Assembly, asserting its constitutional role, re-passed the ten Bills on 18 November 2023 without alteration and resubmitted them for assent.
- On 28 November 2023, instead of assenting to the re-passed Bills, the Governor reserved all ten Bills for the consideration of the President, citing possible repugnancy with subjects in the Union List. This reservation was done without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- On 11 December 2023, the State moved an application seeking amendment of its writ petition to directly challenge the validity of the Governor’s conduct, terming it unconstitutional, arbitrary, mala fide and destructive of the federal balance.
Issues for Consideration
- . Whether the Governor may withhold assent simpliciter to a Bill without returning it for reconsideration under the first proviso to Article 200.
- Whether the Governor may reserve for the consideration of the President a Bill which has been repassed by the Legislative Assembly after being returned once under the proviso to Article 200.
- Whether prolonged inaction or delay by the Governor in dealing with Bills, mercy petitions (Article 161), sanctions for prosecution, and appointments is constitutionally permissible.
- Whether actions and inactions of the Governor under Articles 200, 201, 161 are subject to judicial review.
- What reliefs can be granted by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 142.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
1. Constitutional Scheme of Article 200
Article 200 envisages four courses of action for the Governor when a Bill is presented:
(a) assent;
(b) withhold assent;
(c) return the Bill with a message (first proviso);
(d) reserve for President (second proviso).
The Court held that “withhold assent” cannot be read as a pocket veto. It must be coupled with reasons
and a message, otherwise it would negate the legislative supremacy of the Assembly.
The Governor’s role is formal and limited; he is not an independent political actor but a constitutional
head bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 163).
2. On Withholding Assent
The Court declared that the Governor’s act of withholding assent simpliciter on 13 November 2023 was
unconstitutional.
The first proviso mandates that when the Governor chooses not to assent, he must return the Bill with a
message. Failure to do so constitutes arbitrary inaction.
3. On Reservation of Re-passed Bills
The most critical issue concerned the re-passed Bills of 18 November 2023.
Once a Bill has been reconsidered and re-passed by the Legislature, the Governor is bound to grant
assent.
Reservation of such Bills for the President is impermissible. The Governor’s action of 28 November 2023
was thus held to be unconstitutional, mala fide and void.
Consequently, any consideration of these Bills by the President would be without jurisdiction and void
ab initio.
4. On Inaction and Pocket Veto
The Court emphasised that constitutional functions cannot be paralysed by inaction.
Delay of nearly two years in processing the Bills was contrary to the constitutional design.
A pocket veto by the Governor is alien to the parliamentary system and violates the democratic
mandate.
5. On Judicial Review
The Court reaffirmed that actions under Articles 200, 201, 161 are not beyond judicial scrutiny.
Where there is evidence of:
Mala Fides,
Arbitrariness,
Non-Application Of Mind, Or
Unreasonable Delay.
6. . On Mercy Petitions and Other Functions
Inaction on mercy petitions under Article 161 directly affects personal liberty.
Such inaction is subject to judicial review. The Court cited past precedents where delay in mercy
petitions had been struck down as unconstitutional.
Similarly, sanctions for prosecution and appointments must be dealt with expeditiously.
7. Role of Constitutional Morality
The Court underlined that the Governor is expected to act with constitutional morality and democratic
responsibility, not as an agent of obstruction.
Constitutional conventions are not empty rituals but integral to the operation of parliamentary
democracy.
8. Relief under Article 142
To prevent a constitutional vacuum and uphold legislative supremacy, the Court invoked Article 142.
It directed that the ten re-passed Bills shall be deemed to have received assent of the Governor with
effect from 18 November 2023 (the date they were re-presented).
This extraordinary relief ensured that the Governor’s unconstitutional reservation did not frustrate the
democratic will of the elected Legislature.
Holdings of the Court
1. Ten re-passed Bills of Tamil Nadu are deemed to have received assent under Article 142, effective
from 18 November 2023.
2. Withholding assent simpliciter is unconstitutional. The Governor must either assent or return with a
message under the first proviso.
3. Reservation of a re-passed Bill is impermissible. Once re-passed, the Governor is bound to grant
assent.
4. Pocket veto is alien to the Constitution. Indefinite inaction by the Governor is unconstitutional.
5. Judicial review is available against arbitrary, mala fide or delayed gubernatorial action.
Effect and Significance
Restriction on Discretionary Power
The Governor’s discretion under Articles 200 and 201 is narrowly construed.He is bound by the advice of
the Council of Ministers and cannot act unilaterally to block legislation.
Elimination of Pocket Veto
The judgment conclusively eliminates the possibility of Governors employing pocket veto.It ensures that
legislative supremacy of elected assemblies cannot be frustrated through silence or inaction.
Strengthening Federalism
The decision reaffirms the balance of power between the Union and the States.It prevents Governors,
who are appointed by the Union, from undermining State legislatures.
Judicial Review of Governors’ Actions
The Court has made clear that gubernatorial functions are not immune from scrutiny.This enhances
accountability and reduces the scope of misuse.
Precedent for Constitutional Morality
The judgment reinforces that constitutional morality and conventions are enforceable standards.It sends
a strong signal that Governors must function as constitutional heads and not as political actors.
Practical Consequence
The ten Tamil Nadu Bills in question stand operational by virtue of the Court’s direction.It sets a
precedent for similar disputes in other States where Governors have delayed assent.
Broader Constitutional Impact
The judgment safeguards parliamentary democracy by ensuring that the will of the people, expressed
through their elected representatives, is not subverted.It strengthens the functional integrity of the
Constitution by preventing institutional paralysis.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu is a landmark
pronouncement on the constitutional role of the Governor. It firmly curtails the misuse of presidental
discretion, eliminates the spectre of pocket veto, and reinforces the supremacy of the elected
Legislature.
By invoking Article 142 to deem assent granted, the Court not only remedied the immediate impasse in
Tamil Nadu but also set a constitutional precedent of enduring importance. The judgment realigns the
functioning of Governors with the spirit of parliamentary democracy and ensures that the federal
balance envisioned by the Constitution is preserved.