CITATION: 2025 INSC 481 | WRIT PETITION(CIVIL): No. 1239 OF 2023
BENCH: J. B. PARDIWALA AND R. MAHADEVAN
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | DECIDED: 8 APRIL 2025
INTRODUCTION
On 8 April, 2025, a division bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan passed a landmark judgement in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, the Court declared that Governor delaying in granting assent to thebills are illegal. The court ruled that the President and Governors do not enjoy an absolute veto over bills sent to them for assent and also prescribed timelines within which they should act on such bills.
BACKGROUND
Between 2020 and 2023, the Tamil Nadu assembly passed several bills in which many related to governance of state universities and other related state matters. All these bills after passed by the assembly were sent for the Governor assent under Article 200 of the constitution of India. But the Governor put reserved some of these bills in consideration for the President and returned others bills for reconsideration. The state government alleged that kept several bills pending for months and in some cases for years without granting the assent. The government argued that this effectively created a pocket veto not contemplated by the constitution.
In October 2023, the state of Tamil Nadu filed s writ petition before the Supreme Court to look into this legal matter.
ISSUES INVOLVED
Can Bills submitted to the Governor by the state assembly under Article 200 be kept pending without response for an indefinite time period.
- Under Article 200, the Governor obligated to resend the bill to the legislative assembly or withhold his assent for unlimited time.
- When can Governor send a re- passed bill by the assembly and keep it for President assent.
- Scope of Governor power Under Article 200.
- Governor can permanently withhold his assent by using “Absolute Veto”
Legal Provisions Applied
- Article 200: Assent to bills by Governor
- The Article 200 gives Governor four powers or options with the bills passed by the assembly,
- Grant assent
Withhold assent
Return the bill to assembly - Reserve the bill for the consideration of the President
Article 201: Bill reserved for the President
This article applies when the Governor reserved the bill for the consideration of President.
- Article 163: Aid and Advice of the Council of Ministers
This article provides that Governor shall act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers of the state except where in the constitution grants discretion. - Article 154: Executive Power of the state
- This article vests executive power in the Governor, but that power is exercised according to the Constitution and ordinally through elected government.
Reasoning of the Court
The supreme Court said that in the parliamentary system the Governor act on the aid and advice of the state council of ministers. Governor not giving his assent to the bills passed by the assembly would undermine the democratic mandate of the elected government and legislature.
The Court held that according to Article 200 the Governor has given only three powers constitutionally when bill is presented to him that are:
- Grant assent
- Return the bill
- Reserve the bill for the consideration of the President
The Court rejected that the Governor has fourth option simply withholding the bill assent indefinitely. The Court said that the constitution does not contemplate “pocket veto” to the Governor. The Court held that the bill once returned to the legislature passed again by the legislature, Article 200 states that the Governor “shall not withhold the assent”. Therefore, after reconsideration by the legislature if the bill is passed again by the legislature the Governor cannot block the bill again.
The Court argued that Governor inaction is harmful for Indian federal structure. The statelegislatures are democratically elected institutions, if Governor indefinitely stall the legislation, they could effectively exercise control over state policy without any accountability. The Court also reject the idea that the Governor inaction is beyond judicial review. The court said that if Governor delay’s defeat the constitutional process, Courts can review the action or inaction.
Conclusion/ Judgement
The Court held that Governor withholding the bill indefinitely is unconstitutional. The court also held that reserving the bill which is re passed by the legislature for the consideration of the President is also illegal. The Court held that the Governor do not have Constitutional power of “Pocket Veto” or “Absolute Veto”. The court held that if the bill is re passed by the legislature than Governor has to give his assent. The Court held that reserving the bill for consideration of the President if bill is again passed by the legislature is illegal. The Court held that Governor can reserve the bill for reconsideration of the President when bill passed again is different from the previous bill.
The Court also held the under Article 163 of the Indian constitution provides that “there shall be a council of ministers headed by chief minister to aid and advice the Governor in the exercise the functions under the constitution. The governor can exercise the discretion only when the constitution expressly or by implied provisions permits the discretion. In regard to Article 200 of the constitution, it is mandatory for the Governor to follow the advice of the council of ministers.
My Analysis
The Governor using his veto power not to give assent to the bills passed by the legislature is not a legal thing. Though Governor has power to sent a bill back to the legislature for reconsideration is a valid thing. But if legislature passed the bill again, it is illegal for the Governor to withhold his assent to the bill. Under Article 163 it is given that Governor shall act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers, the Governor withholding his assent undermines the constitution. The Governor withhold the bill also undermine the accountability of the elected government.
In federal structure it is the duty of the state to provide governance in the state. The state government is accountable for any actions in the state. The Governor should act on the advice of the council of ministers as they held accountable for any act done in the state. Not giving the assent to the bills undermine the accountability. Article 200 gives only three powers to the Governor that is to Give assent, return the bill and keep for reconsideration of the President. Withholding the bill indefinitely is not the power of the Governor. Keeping the assent withheld for long time is unconstitutional and it also hinders the governance in the state.
The Court also declares timelines for providing assent to the bills by the Governor is also undermines the power of the Governors. There should be a reason for the Governor to delay his assent to the bill but setting up a timeline is also unconstitutional. There should a balance of power between government of state and the Governor so that governance in the state does not get diverted.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY GRAHIT MUDGAL FROM PARSANDI DEVI COLLEGE OF LAW, GREATER NOIDA(UP)