SUPR E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU & ANR. Respondent(s)
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1239/2023
A bench ofJustices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan
SUPREME COURT ON GOVERNORS' ROLE IN BILL ASSENT – ANALYSIS OF RECENT JUDGMENT
In a landmark ruling on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a powerful judgment that clarified the constitutional position and duties of State Governors under Article 200 of the Constitution. The judgment addressed the prolonged inaction by the Tamil Nadu Governor, Dr. R.N. Ravi, who withheld assent on ten legislative bills passed by the State Assembly, some of which had been pending since January 2020. The Court’s decision not only settled the fate of these bills but also reinforced key democratic and constitutional values.
BACKGROUND
The Tamil Nadu Government filed writ petitions before the Supreme Court after the Governor withheld assent for ten bills passed by the State Assembly. Despite the re-enactment of these bills in a special legislative session, the Governor reserved them for the President’s consideration, leading to concerns about constitutional propriety and the deliberate stalling of legislative processes.
The matter came before a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. The bench examined crucial constitutional issues including the role of Governors under Article 200, the validity of withholding assent without returning bills to the legislature, and the extent of the Governor’s discretion in such matters.
KEY FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
No Absolute or Pocket Veto
The Supreme Court declared that the concept of a “pocket veto“—where the Governor sits indefinitely on a bill—is alien to the Constitution. As per Article 200, the Governor must either:
- Grant assent,
- Withhold assent (with reasons), or
- Reserve the bill for the President.
Once a bill is re-enacted by the Assembly after being withheld, it cannot be reserved again for the President unless it materially differs from the original version. Hence, the Governor’s action of withholding assent and then sending re-enacted bills to the President was declared illegal and erroneous.
Bills Deemed to Have Received Assent
Due to the Governor’s prolonged inaction and lack of constitutional propriety, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 and deemed the ten bills to have received the Governor’s assent. The Court held that the Governor failed to act in accordance with the Constitution and did not demonstrate bona fides in his actions.
Timelines for Assent Clarified
The Court laid down specific timelines to prevent future misuse of gubernatorial discretion:
- Within 1 month: Action must be taken (assent or reservation) when acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Within 3 months: If withholding assent against ministerial advice, the bill must be returned to the Assembly.
- Within 1 month: Bills re-enacted after being returned must receive assent promptly.
Governor Must Act on Aid and Advice
The Court emphasized that the Governor is a constitutional head, not a political authority. He must act based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in limited cases (e.g., where High Court or Supreme Court powers are involved).
Judicial Review Permissible
Any inaction or violation of prescribed timelines by the Governor will now be subject to judicial review, ensuring accountability.
ROLE OF THE GOVERNOR CLARIFIED
The Supreme Court used strong words to describe the constitutional vision for the role of Governors:
“We are not undermining the office of the Governor. All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of Parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people… He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and guide… not guided by political expediency but by the sanctity of the Constitutional oath.”
The Court warned against using the office to stall legislative processes or subvert electoral mandates:
“The Governor must be the catalyst and not the inhibitor… The members of the State legislature have been elected by the people… any expression contrary to their express choice would be a renege on the Constitutional oath.”
Justice Pardiwala concluded the judgment with a quote from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
“However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.”
CONCLUSION
This judgment serves as a constitutional milestone in reaffirming the primacy of democratic will, the limited discretionary powers of the Governor, and the imperative for constitutional functionaries to uphold the values of the Constitution. It sends a strong message that elected legislatures cannot be held hostage by political maneuvering at the gubernatorial level and that the judiciary stands as a watchdog to prevent such subversions.
It also ensures that any future attempts by Governors to delay or derail legislative functions will be subject to strict scrutiny and timely correction by the judiciary, thus preserving the federal structure and spirit of the Constitution.
