Case: State of Tamil Nadu V. Governor of Tamil Nadu

Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan

Introduction:

The case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu brought into focus the constitutional relationship between a state government and its governor, specifically regarding the granting of assent to state legislation. It arose out of growing tension between the Tamil Nadu government, led by the DMK and Governor R.N. Ravi, who was alleged to have delayed assent on multiple bills passed by the state legislature. This delay led to a broader legal question: Can a governor effectively block state legislation by sitting indefinitely on bills without approving or returning them?

Facts

From around November 2020 to April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed 13 bills. Out of these, 10 bills were either sent back or withheld by the Governor—and what made it worse was that he didn’t even give a proper explanation or communicate his reasons to the Assembly. Later, when the state legislature passed the same bills again, without making any real changes, the Governor still refused to give his assent. Instead, he sent them to the President for approval.

Frustrated by the delay, the State of Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the governor’s inaction was unconstitutional and violated the federal structure by interfering with the functioning of a democratically elected state government.

Issues:

• Whether a governor can indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by the state legislature under Article 200 of the Constitution?

• Does the governor act independently in such matters, or is he constitutionally bound to act on the advice of the council of ministers?

• Can the judiciary intervene when the governor fails to act within a reasonable time on bills passed by the legislature?

Observations of the Supreme Court

• Justice Pardiwala, at the very beginning of the judgment, observed that once a Bill is passed by the State Legislature, there is a constitutional obligation to present it before the Governor for his consideration. Upon such presentation, the Governor is empowered, under Article 200, to exercise only one of three distinct courses of action: to grant assent, to withhold assent, or to reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration. These options, as clarified by the Court, are mutually exclusive and cannot be invoked simultaneously or successively for the same Bill.

• Where the Governor opts to withhold assent, the first proviso to Article 200 becomes operative. This provision mandates that the Bill must be returned to the State Legislature for its reconsideration. Hence, in cases where the Governor withholds assent, the obligation arises to return the Bill to the Legislature ‘as soon as possible.’ As noted by the Court, the Governor ‘does not have the discretion to withhold and sit on the bill without returning it.’ Consequently, the Governor is constitutionally barred from exercising either an ‘absolute’ or ‘pocket veto.’

• The Legislature holds the discretion to either incorporate or reject the Governor’s recommendations. Importantly, if the Legislature re-enacts the Bill and resubmits it, the Governor is then obligated to grant assent and is not constitutionally permitted to withhold it once again. It was further recognised that although the Legislature may take time to reconsider the Bill, it is only upon complete inaction by the Legislature that the Bill may lapse. The power of reconsideration lies entirely with the elected House and not with the Governor.

• Justice Pardiwala explained that under Article 200, the Governor has only three choices—approve the bill, reject it, or send it to the President. Once the Governor chooses one of these, they can’t later switch to another. Therefore, if the Governor withholds assent to a bill and the legislature reconsiders and sends it back, the Governor cannot reserve it for the President’s consideration. This is because, by withholding assent, the Governor exhausts one of the options under the provision. As he put it, there's a ‘strict constitutional prohibition against the Governor to not withhold assent’ more than once for the same bill.

However, the judgment allowed for a rare exception. If the Legislature changes the bill in a way that goes beyond what the Governor had earlier suggested, and introduces new elements, then the Governor might be allowed to send it to the President. But this is only allowed if the new version of the bill raises “wholly different and new grounds.” On the other hand, if the Legislature only makes changes based on the Governor’s suggestions, the Governor cannot then reserve it for the President.

• Justice Pardiwala said it was important to set clear deadlines for the Governor to act on bills under Article 200. He explained that adding these timelines doesn't amend the Constitution or how Article 200 works. Instead, ‘it only reinforces the sense of expediency and urgency’ that the Constitution intended in the first place.

Accordingly, the following time limits were judicially prescribed-

• i) If the Governor withholds assent or reserves the Bill for the President, on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers: Sent back to legislature in one month.
• ii) Governor withholds assent contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers: Sent back to legislature in three months.
• iii) Governor reserves the Bill for the President contrary to advice: Reserve bill within three months.
• iv) If the legislature re-passes and re-presents the Bill: Assent within one month.

• If the Governor doesn’t act within the given time limits, their inaction can be challenged in court. The Governor would need to explain any delay in granting assent beyond these limits. These deadlines are in place to stop the Governor from delaying bills indefinitely. If the Governor delays assent out of ‘reluctance or lethargy,’ state governments can’t be left without a solution. Such delays could slow down the lawmaking process and even hurt the public’s trust in the government, potentially impacting future elections. The Court warned that this could be a serious threat to the ‘federal structure of the country.’ Because of this, state governments are allowed to go to court and ask for a writ of mandamus, which is a legal order directing a government official to perform their duty.

• The Judgement held that the Governor may exercise discretion without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in two circumstances. First, when a state bill contains provisions that derogate the powers of the High Courts. Second, where the bill mandates Presidential assent, or when the Council of Ministers cannot function due to a complete breakdown of constitutional machinery. However, the exercise of such powers is subject to judicial review. The absence of judicial review, the Court warned, would effectively shield the Governor’s actions ‘in a lead casket’ that remains impenetrable even in cases of constitutional violation.

• Because of the unusual and long process in this case, the Court decided it was ‘absolutely necessary and appropriate’ to use its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. This allowed the Court to treat the 10 pending bills as if they had already received assent on the day they were sent to the Governor for reconsideration. Article 142 gives the Court the authority to make any order it believes is needed to ensure ‘complete justice.’ The Court made it clear that using these powers wasn’t done casually, but only after ‘deep deliberations.’

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling is widely seen as a major reaffirmation of the federal structure and democratic accountability. It prevents governors from overstepping their constitutional role and sets a precedent that governors cannot sit indefinitely on bills. The judgment is also expected to have ripple effects across other states where similar tensions between governors and state governments have emerged.

Moreover, the decision strengthens the principle that elected governments must be allowed to function without undue interference, ensuring smoother governance and respecting the will of the people expressed through their legislative representatives.