Source: - The Indian Express 

Introduction 

In April 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment concerning the constitutional role of Governors in the legislative process. The case centered on Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's actions regarding 10 Bills that had been pending with him, some since January 2020. The Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) to effectively grant assent to these Bills, while also establishing clear timelines for Governors to exercise their lawmaking powers.  

• This ruling significantly impacts the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution and redefines the relationship between state legislatures and Governors in India's federal structure. 

What is the Background of The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. and the Vice Chancellor and Ors. Case? 

Background: 

• The Supreme Court's judgment centered on 10 Bills that had been pending with Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, some dating back to January 2020. 
• After the Governor withheld assent without providing reasons, the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-enacted these Bills. 
• Instead of granting assent to the re-enacted Bills, the Governor reserved them for the President's consideration, particularly after the Supreme Court's ruling in the Punjab Governor's case which had clarified that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on Bills.  
• The Tamil Nadu government challenged these actions in the Supreme Court, arguing they violated Article 200 of the Constitution and undermined the state legislature's authority. 

Court's Observations of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan: 

• Constitutional Framework: The Court interpreted Article 200 of the Constitution, which deals with the Governor's role in the legislative process. It determined that while no explicit time limit is prescribed for the Governor's actions, the phrase "as soon as possible" in the first proviso implies decisions must be taken expeditiously. 
• No Pocket or Absolute Veto: The judgment explicitly stated that neither "pocket veto" (indefinitely sitting on bills) nor "absolute veto" (simply rejecting bills without returning them to the legislature) are permissible under the constitutional scheme. 
• Re-enacted Bills: The Court ruled that when bills are re-enacted by the State Assembly after being returned by the Governor, the Governor must grant assent within a specified timeframe and cannot reserve them for the President's consideration in the second round. 
• Governor's Discretion: The bench clarified that the Governor generally does not have discretion in these matters and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The removal of the phrase "in his discretion" from the Government of India Act, 1935, when adopting Article 200 was cited as evidence of this intent. 
• Bona Fides Concerns: The Court found that Governor Ravi had not acted in good faith, noting that he had withheld his assent without communicating reasons to the legislature and had suddenly reserved the re-enacted bills for the President immediately after the Supreme Court's judgment in the Punjab Governor's case.

What did the Court Held Regarding the Tamil Nadu Governor in the Case? 

• The Supreme Court declared Governor Ravi's withholding of assent and subsequent reservation of the 10 Bills for the President's consideration as "illegal and erroneous in law." 
• The Court found that the Governor "did not act with bona fides" when he withheld assent without communicating reasons to the Legislature and when he suddenly reserved the re-enacted Bills for the President right after the Punjab Governor's judgment. 
• The judgment stated that Governor Ravi kept the Bills pending for "an unduly long period of time," with some Bills dating back to January 2020. 
• The Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to declare that all 10 Bills "be deemed to have got assented" by the Governor. 
• Any steps taken by the President regarding these Bills were declared "non-est" (legally void) and were set aside. 
• The judgment admonished that the Governor "must not create roadblocks or chokehold the State legislature in order to thwart and break the will of the people for political ends." 
• The Court warned that any action contrary to the express choice of the State Legislature "would be a renege on the Constitutional oath" taken by the Governor.

What are the Cases Referred to in the Supreme Court Judgment?

• Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): 
  • The judgment cited this landmark 1974 ruling, which established that the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as a rule and can exercise discretionary powers only as an exception.  
  • The Court noted that the decision in B.K. Pavithra was "not in consonance with the observations made by the larger bench decision of this Court in Shamsher Singh." 
• The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab(2023): 
  • This recent case regarding the Punjab Governor's refusal to summon the Budget session was frequently referenced. The Court noted that the Tamil Nadu Governor had reserved the Bills for the President immediately after this judgment was pronounced.  
  • The ruling had established that "the Governor cannot exercise absolute veto and sit over the Bills forever and he must return it to the State Legislature." 
• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): 
  • This case was mentioned in the documents as establishing that the individual opinion of the Governor cannot be a ground for imposing President's Rule. 
• Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker (2016): 
  • This Constitution Bench decision from the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly case was referenced as having expressly stated that the power to summon the House is not solely vested in the Governor. 
• B.K. Pavithra v. Union of India (2020): 
  • The Court specifically disagreed with the ratio in this judgment, which had stated that the Constitution confers discretion upon the Governor to reserve Bills for the President's consideration. The current judgment overruled this aspect of the B.K. Pavithra decision. 
• Perarivalan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020): 
  • The Court drew support from this case which held that when no express time limit is prescribed for an action, it must be exercised within a reasonable time. 
• Union of India v. Valluri Basavaiah Chaudhary (1979): 
  • This case was referenced regarding the interpretation of the first proviso to Article 200, with the Court noting that the expression used in this case "signifies that once the Governor declares withholding of assent, and returns the Bill to House or Houses, the Bill would lapse or fall through unless the House or Houses reconsider the Bill." 
  • These precedents collectively helped the Court establish its position on the limits of gubernatorial powers and the proper interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution. 

What is Article 200 of the Indian Constitution? 

• Article 200 of the Constitution of India deals with the powers of the Governor regarding Bills passed by the State Legislature. According to this Article, when a Bill is presented to the Governor after being passed by the State Legislature, the Governor has three options: 
  • Give assent to the Bill 
  • Withhold assent 
  • Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President 
• The first proviso to Article 200 states that if the Governor withholds assent, they should "as soon as possible" return the Bill to the Legislature with a message requesting reconsideration. If the Legislature again passes the Bill with or without amendments and presents it to the Governor, the Governor "shall not withhold assent therefrom." 

What are the Interpretations of Article 200 in the Judgment? 

• On the Three Options Available to the Governor: 
  • The Court clarified that under Article 200, the Governor must choose one of the three actions (assent, withhold, or reserve for President) and cannot indefinitely sit on Bills. The judgment stated: "The substantive part of Article 200 consciously uses the expression 'shall declare' which signifies there is no scope of inaction." 
• On Timing of Actions: 
  • The Court emphasized that the expression "as soon as possible" in Article 200 implies a sense of urgency: "The expression 'as soon as possible' permeates Article 200 with the sense of expediency and does not allow the Governor to sit on the Bills and exercise pocket veto over them." 
• On Withholding Assent: 
  • The Court ruled that withholding assent is not an independent power and must be read with the obligation to return the Bill to the Legislature: "The first proviso to Article 200 must be read in conjunction to the option of withholding assent provided in the substantive part of Article 200. It is not an independent course of action." 
• On Reservation for President: 
  • The judgment established that Bills can be reserved for the President only at the first instance: "As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President once it was presented before him in the second round after having been returned to the House previously." 
• On Governor's Discretion: 
  • The Court interpreted the removal of the phrase "in his discretion" from the Government of India Act, 1935, when adopting Article 200, as significant: "The removal of the expression 'in his discretion' from Section 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935 when it was being adopted as Article 200 of the Constitution clearly indicates that any discretion available to the Governor under the Act 1935 in respect of reservation of Bills became unavailable with the commencement of the Constitution." 
• On Re-enacted Bills: 
  • The judgment emphasized that when Bills are re-enacted by the Legislature after being returned by the Governor, the Constitution mandates that the Governor must grant assent: "The use of the expression 'shall not withhold assent thereof' appearing in the first proviso places a clear embargo on the Governor and clear enunciation on the requirement that the Governor must accept the Bills which is presented to him after complying with the provisions laid down in the first proviso." 
  • The Court's interpretation definitively closed potential loopholes in Article 200, establishing that the Governor cannot indefinitely delay decisions on Bills, cannot exercise absolute veto power, and must respect the will of the elected Legislature, particularly when it reaffirms its position by re-enacting Bills. 

Conclusion 

This Supreme Court judgment represents a significant development in India's constitutional jurisprudence, particularly regarding the balance of power between state governments and centrally appointed Governors. By setting specific timelines for gubernatorial actions and limiting the Governor's ability to obstruct the legislative process, the Court has reinforced the primacy of elected legislatures in India's democratic framework. The ruling serves as a reminder that constitutional authorities must act with "due deference to the settled conventions of Parliamentary democracy" and respect the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. As Justice Pardiwala quoted Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the judgment's conclusion: "However good a constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad."