By Shailendra Singh (Advocate & Mediator), Supreme Court of India 

In a watershed decision that will reshape the contours of India’s federal structure and executive-legislative relations, the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) has delivered a comprehensive 414-page judgment clarifying the constitutional role, powers, and limitations of Governors in the legislative process. This landmark verdict conclusively settles numerous contentious issues regarding the Governor’s powers under Article 200 of the Constitution that have plagued Centre-State relations for decades.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the Governor of Tamil Nadu withheld assent to ten bills passed by the State Legislature without providing reasons or messages for reconsideration. When the State Legislature reconsidered and repassed these bills without amendments, the Governor, instead of granting assent as mandated by the first proviso to Article 200, reserved them for the President’s consideration. This led the Tamil Nadu government to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the constitutionality of the Governor’s actions.

Key Constitutional Questions Addressed

The Supreme Court, through Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, systematically examined several crucial constitutional questions:

1. The scope of discretionary powers of Governors under Article 200
2. The relationship between the substantive part and provisos of Article 200
3. Whether “pocket veto” or “absolute veto” powers exist for Governors
4. The time limits within which Governors must act on bills presented for assent
5. The justiciability of gubernatorial actions under Article 200
6. The constitutional procedure when bills are reserved for the President

Rejection of the “Absolute Veto” Power

In a decisive interpretation, the Court categorically rejected both “pocket veto” (indefinitely sitting on bills without taking action) and “absolute veto” (simpliciter withholding of assent without following the procedure in the first proviso) powers for Governors. The Court clarified that the first proviso to Article 200 is intrinsically attached to the option of withholding assent in the substantive part, making it mandatory for Governors to return bills with messages if they intend to withhold assent.

Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan observed:

“Neither the concept of ‘pocket veto’ nor that of ‘absolute veto’ finds place within the constitutional scheme and mechanism envisaged under Article 200 of the Constitution… The expression ‘as soon as possible’ in the first proviso permeates Article 200 with a sense of expediency and does not allow the Governor to sit on the bills and exercise pocket veto over them.”

Prescribed Time Limits for Gubernatorial Action

Addressing the chronic issue of delays by Governors in deciding on bills, the Court prescribed specific time limits for action under Article 200:

• One month for assenting to or withholding assent to bills when acting on ministerial advice
• Three months for withholding assent when acting contrary to ministerial advice
• Three months for reserving bills for the President’s consideration when acting contrary to ministerial advice
• One month for assenting to bills presented after reconsideration by the State Legislature

Similarly, the Court stipulated that the President must decide on bills reserved for consideration within three months.

Limited Discretion of Governors

The Court significantly curtailed gubernatorial discretion, holding that Governors must normally act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Governor can exercise independent discretion only in three limited circumstances:

1. When the bill falls within the second proviso to Article 200 (bills derogating from the powers of the High Court)
2. When the bill requires the President’s assent as a condition precedent under provisions like Articles 31A, 31C, 254(2), etc.
3. In exceptional circumstances where the bill poses a genuine threat to the principles of representative democracy

Justiciability of Gubernatorial Actions

Overruling B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India (2019) as per incuriam, the Court held that the Governor’s actions under Article 200 are subject to judicial review. The judgment provides a detailed framework for challenging gubernatorial actions on grounds such as:

• Improper invocation of the second proviso
• Inadequate or improper reasons for reservation of bills
• Reservation of bills on extraneous or politically motivated grounds
• Inaction beyond prescribed time limits

Presidential Role Under Article 201

The Court also elucidated the President’s role under Article 201, holding that:

1. The President must decide on reserved bills within three months
2. The President should make a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 for bills reserved on grounds of patent unconstitutionality
3. Presidential withholding of assent must be based on cogent reasons provided to the State
4. The proviso to Article 201 should be invoked when withholding assent to allow State legislatures to reconsider the bill

Practical Application: A Deemed Assent Doctrine

In a remarkable exercise of its powers under Article 142, the Court:

1. Declared the Governor’s reservation of the ten repassed bills as illegal and void
2. Set aside subsequent Presidential actions on these bills
3. Deemed the bills to have received gubernatorial assent on the date they were presented after reconsideration (November 18, 2023)

This “deemed assent” doctrine represents a significant judicial intervention to prevent constitutional deadlocks caused by gubernatorial inaction or overreach.

Implications for Centre-State Relations

This landmark judgment fundamentally recalibrates Centre-State relations in several ways:

1. Enhanced Legislative Autonomy: By restricting gubernatorial vetoes, the Court has strengthened the legislative powers of State legislatures.
2. Increased Accountability: The prescribed time limits and justiciability of gubernatorial actions introduce greater accountability in the exercise of powers under Article 200.
3. Clarified Federal Boundaries: The judgment delineates clear boundaries between legitimate Central oversight and unconstitutional interference in State legislative affairs.
4. Strengthened Collaborative Federalism: The emphasis on pre-legislative consultation between Centre and States on matters of concurrent jurisdiction promotes cooperative federalism.
5. Judicial Safeguards: The recommendation for Presidential references under Article 143 in cases of constitutional doubt places the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions.

Conclusion: A Constitutional Reset

The Supreme Court’s judgment represents a profound constitutional reset that harmonizes the principles of federalism, parliamentary democracy, and constitutional governance. By circumscribing gubernatorial discretion, prescribing time limits, and establishing justiciability of executive actions, the Court has restored the primacy of elected representatives in the law-making process while preserving legitimate Central oversight in matters of national importance.

This judgment serves as a testament to the Supreme Court’s role as the sentinel on the qui vive, ever vigilant to ensure that constitutional functionaries act within the four corners of the Constitution. As the Court eloquently noted in its conclusion:

“The soul of India is its Constitution… The laws and rules that uplift all people sprout from its pristine womb, welfare of all is its primary concern, but its sanctity and safety should be our prime concern.”

---

Disclaimer:  As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, this blog is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.The writer does not intend to solicit clients through this blog. For specific legal advice, please consult a qualified legal professional.