State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu

Supreme Court of India · 8 April 2025 · 2 judges · 2025 INSC 481

The Governor's reservation for the President of ten Bills re-passed by the Tamil Nadu legislature was illegal; the Court held that Article 200 allows no pocket or absolute veto, prescribed time-limits, and declared the Bills deemed assented under Article 142.

Facts

Between January 2020 and April 2023 the Tamil Nadu legislature sent 12 Bills to the Governor, who took no action on them. The State filed a writ petition under Article 32 on 31 October 2023, also complaining of inaction on other files. After notice was issued, the Governor on 13 November 2023 declared that he withheld assent to 10 Bills, without any message for reconsideration, and reserved two for the President. The legislature re-passed the 10 Bills without material change on 18 November 2023. On 28 November 2023 the Governor, acting in his discretion and not on ministerial advice, reserved them for the President on the ground of repugnancy with Entry 66 of List I. The President later withheld assent to seven, assented to one and had not decided two. The State amended its petition to challenge the reservation.

Questions before the Court

What courses of action are open to the Governor under Article 200, and whether the Article permits a pocket veto or absolute veto.
Whether the Governor can reserve a Bill for the President when it is presented again after reconsideration under the first proviso to Article 200, having earlier withheld assent.
Whether there is a time-limit for the Governor under Article 200 and the President under Article 201, and whether the Court can prescribe one.
Whether the Governor under Article 200 must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and whether his discretionary actions and the President's actions under Article 201 are subject to judicial review.

What the Court held

Under Article 200 the Governor may assent, withhold assent or reserve the Bill for the President. The first proviso is attached to withholding of assent and must be followed when assent is withheld. Neither pocket veto nor absolute veto exists. State of Punjab correctly states the law and is not per incuriam.
A Bill re-passed after reconsideration under the first proviso must be assented to; it cannot, as a rule, be reserved for the President in the second round, unless it is materially different. The reservation of the ten Bills was illegal and set aside, and the President's consequent actions were non-est.
As a general rule the Governor under Article 200 acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Exceptions are limited to second proviso Bills, Bills needing Presidential assent under provisions such as Articles 31A, 31C and 254(2), and Bills that would imperil representative democracy. B.K. Pavitra was held per incuriam on two points.
Although Article 200 fixes no time-limit, the Court prescribed limits: one month for withholding or reservation on ministerial advice, three months when contrary to advice, and one month to assent to a re-passed Bill. The President must decide a reserved Bill within three months and give reasons for withholding assent. Inaction beyond these limits invites mandamus.
The Governor's discretionary withholding or reservation is justiciable on judicially determinable standards. The President's withholding of assent is reviewable only for arbitrariness or mala fides where assent is needed for enforceability or immunity, but fully where a Bill is reserved as patently unconstitutional, when the President ought to seek this Court's opinion under Article 143.
Given the Governor's long inaction and lack of bona fides, the Court used Article 142 to declare the ten Bills deemed assented to on 18 November 2023, the date they were presented after reconsideration.

Why it matters

The judgment lays down how the Governor and the President must deal with State Bills under Articles 200 and 201. It rules out pocket and absolute vetoes, confines the Governor's discretion, prescribes time-limits for both authorities, makes their discretionary actions open to judicial review, holds B.K. Pavitra per incuriam on two points, and uses Article 142 to declare deemed assent to the ten Bills.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“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 substantive part of Article 200 consciously uses the expression "shall declare" to signify that there is no scope of inaction, and whenever a bill is presented to the Governor, he is under a constitutional obligation to adopt one of the three courses of action available therein.”

J.B. Pardiwala, J.Page 390 of the judgment

“As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve a bill for the consideration of the President once it is presented to him in the second round, after having been returned to the House previously as per the first proviso. The use of the expression "shall not withhold assent therefrom" appearing in the first proviso places a clear embargo on the Governor and is a clear enunciation of the requirement that the Governor must assent to a bill which is presented to him after complying with the procedure laid down in the first proviso.”

J.B. Pardiwala, J.Page 391 of the judgment

“We have elaborated in detail that owing to the clear language in which the first proviso is couched, there would never arise, except in extraordinary situations, any occasion for the Governor to reserve a reconsidered bill for the consideration of the President. The said bills, in the absence of any message given by the Governor under the first proviso, were taken up for reconsideration by the State Assembly and passed in their original form, and presented to the Governor for his assent. Thus, undoubtedly, it was not open to the Governor to reserve the bills for the consideration of the President and he ought to have granted assent.”

J.B. Pardiwala, J.Page 385 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Follows Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020)“Guided by the decisions of this Court in A.G. Perarivalan (supra) and Keisham (supra), we find that it is no more res-integra that the courts are well-empowered to prescribe a time-limit” (page 393)
Follows Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016)“Subsequent Constitution Bench decisions in M.P. Special Police (supra) and Nabam Rebia (supra) clarified that besides the instances where the Governor has been expressly conferred with discretionary powers, there may still be certain exceptional circumstances wherein it would be legitimate for him to act in his own discretion” (page 397)

Case and bench

Parties: The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamilnadu & Anr.
Case: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023
Decided: 8 April 2025
Bench: J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by J.B. Pardiwala, J.