The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor Of Tamilnadu (2025)

CASE BACKROUND:-

• On 31 October 2023, the government of Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) approached the Supreme Court challenging Governor R.N. Ravi’s(hereinafter referred to as respondent) decision to keep various Bills and other proposals submitted by the state government pending indefinitely. 

• The petitioners has claimed that the Governor had indefinetly withheld assent to multiple bills passed by the state legislature over a period of 3 years with respect to the following:

• Withholding/delaying assent to 12 bills passed between 2020 and 2023, however the Governor took charge late 2021, but did not act on the due files at the first priority. 

• Denial or refusal to sanction prosecution of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

• Delays in processing files pertaining to premature releases of prisoners.

• Non-approval of appointments to the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC).

• Blocking ministerial reshuffles, like the reappointment of Dr. K. Ponmudy after clearance by the judiciary and Mr V Senthil Balaji upon the Bail granted by the same court.
• The State had accused the Governor, a non-elected individual, to have acted in contrary to his constitutional functions under Article 163.

ISSUES:-

• What courses of action are available to the Governor in exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution?

• Whether the Governor can reserve a bill for the consideration of the President at the time when it is presented to him for assent after being reconsidered in accordance with the first proviso to Article 200, more particularly, when he had not reserved it for the consideration of the President in the first instance and had declared withholding of assent thereto?

• Whether there is an express constitutionally prescribed time-limit within which the Governor is required to act in the exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution?

• Whether the Governor in the exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution can only act in accordance with the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers? If not, whether the constitutional scheme has vested the Governor with some discretion in discharge of his functions under Article 200?

• Whether the exercise of discretion by the Governor in discharge of his functions under Article 200 could be said to be subject to judicial review? If yes, what are the parameters for such judicial review?
• What is the manner in which the President under Article 201 of the Constitution is required to act once a bill has been reserved for his consideration by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:

• The petitioners had argued that the governor does not exercise absolute veto over withholding assent for bills and by doing so had brought the constitutional machinery to a standstill.

• The first proviso of Art 200 mandates the Governor to communicate any reconsiderations of notes to the legislature by sending the bill back. The governor cannot withhold assent without any communication.

• The first proviso mandates that the governor must assent any bill that has been reconsidered by the legislature. Reservation of assent to a reconsidered bill is viewed illegal and is liable to be set aside.
• Though the Article uses the phrase “as soon as possible” without providing a strict time-limit, the time-limit must be read into the provision. Without such an interpretation, bills may remain pending with the governor for indeterminate periods of time.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:

• The respondent’s had argued that the first proviso of Article 200 does not mandate any communication by the Governor with the legislature with respect to reservation of bills.

• Reservation for the President’s assent is a constitutional tool, not necessarily dependent on the first proviso. If initial withholding of assent was not under the first proviso, the Governor retains the right to later reserve the Bill.

• The respondents had argued that the Governor’s action was guided by concerns over repugnancy with central laws and potential maladministration of universities if Bills were enacted.

• The governor exercises discretionary powers where the Constitution permits including art 200 and 201. This discretion arises in situations where the advice of the Council of Ministers is seen as biased or politically motivated.
• Article 200 does not specify in any case that the Governor has no authority to reserve a bill that was withheld in the first instance. Once the authority has been given to the Governor to act on a bill it cannot be taken away.

JUDGEMENT:-

• The hon’ble apex court emphasised that the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 infuses the provision with a clear sense of urgency. It does not permit the Governor to delay action indefinitely or wield a de facto veto over the legislative process. Instead, it imposes an obligation to act swiftly.

• The Governor does not possess any absolute power of veto. In no case can the
  Governor permanently withhold assent to a bill. The court explained that once a state legislature passes a Bill, the Governor’s role under Article 200 of the Constitution is limited to three clear options: granting assent, withholding assent, or reserving the Bill for the President’s consideration.

•  There is a strict constitutional prohibition against the Governor from withholding assent to a bill reconsidered by the President. A reconsidered bill can only be referred to the President if the legislature introduces fresh changes to a bill. 

• The supreme court had further laid out a timeline under which the executive  can exercise their power with respect to reservation of bills:-

• If the Governor decides to withhold assent or reserve the Bill for the President—on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers—such action must be taken within one month.

• If the Governor withholds assent contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, the Bill must be returned to the legislature within three months.

• If the Governor reserves the Bill for the President, again contrary to advice, this too must be done within three months.
• If a Bill is re-passed and re-presented by the legislature, the Governor must grant assent within one month.

CONCLUSION:-

This landmark judgement holds that unelected constitutional authorities cannot obstruct the will of the elected house of the legislature. It enforces India’s federal character by reasserting the superiority of the elected governments in legislative affairs. By subjecting the Governor to Article 163 and requiring compliance with the aid and advice of the ministers, the Court restricted untrammelled discretion and enforced constitutional morality. In conclusion, the so-called historic verdict is a strong demand to preserve the purity of the Constitution rather than merely a legal decision. The government of India’s decision to appeal the current ruling serves as a reminder to constitutional officials that their positions are subject to the law and that democratic rule must overcome bureaucratic bottlenecks and political overreach. “Framers of the Constitution had in mind a governor as wise counsellor — and not as cause of executive gridlock,” as Justice J.B. Pardiwala had noted. The ruling is a resounding affirmation of the importance of India’s constitutional principles of democracy, federalism, and the rule of law.