The Supreme Court on 8th April 2025 declared the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in assenting to the ten bills as unconstitutional and improper. The Apex Court has clearly stated that a Governor lacks the authority to stop or delay bills which are passed by the State Legislative Assembly. Article 200 imposes a constitutional obligation on the Governor to act without any delay and also does not allow the Governor to withhold the assent on bills or exercise an absolute or pocket veto.

Brief details of State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu

Name of the case	The State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu
Dairy number	45314/2023
CNR number	SCIN010453142023
Parties of the case	Petitioner – The State of Tamil NaduRespondent – The Governor of Tamil Nadu (R1)The Union of India (R2)
Represented by	Petitioner – Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P WilsonRespondent- Attorney General R Venkataramani
Equivalent citations	W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023
Type of the case	Writ Petition (Civil)
Court	Supreme Court of India
Statutes and provisions involved in the case	Article 200 of the ConstitutionArticle 142 of the Constitution
Bench	Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
Judgement Date	8/4/2025

Background of the case

The present case is a writ petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the Union of India. 

Categories of pending matters

The Tamil Nadu Government filed the writ petition, which highlights the following matters:

Pending bills

The Governor has still not assented to 12 Bills which were passed by the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu. All the 12 bills were passed between 2020 to 2023 and were submitted to the Governor between 13th January, 2020, to 28th April, 2023.

Prosecution sanctions 

No decisions have been taken on the four files seeking sanctions to prosecute the public servants. The files were submitted between April 10, 2022 and May 15, 2023.

Early release of prisoners 

Action is still pending on the 54 files sent between August 24, 2023 and June 28, 2023 for premature release of the prisoners. 

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) appointments 

The Governor has still not taken any action on the files related to TNPSC appointments. The required number of members is 14 for TNPSC, while currently there are only 4. 

Role of the Governor under Article 200

Article 200 of the Indian Constitution mentions that after the presentation of the Bill, the Governor must return the Bill as soon as possible, stating what reconsiderations are requested in the specific provisions/ entire Bill to the House. If the same Bill is passed again and sent to the Governor, then he has to approve the same without any delays. 

Use of Article 142 of the Constitution

Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan used their discretionary power under Article 142 (special power given to the court to fill the void which is left by the Legislature) and directed that all the Bills which were pending would be treated as law from the day when they were resubmitted for reassent to the Governor. 

Issues raised in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu

1. Was there an unreasonable delay by the Tamil Nadu Governor in fulfilling his constitutional duties towards Tamil Nadu?
2. When can the Governor send the already re-passed Bill to the President for approval?
3. Can the Governor send the Bill to the Assembly without any explanation? Or does he have to give proper reasons for the same?
4. Does the Governor have the power to keep the Bills pending without giving any response for a long time? 

Contentions of parties in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu

Petitioner’s contentions

The advocates of the petitioner contend that withholding the assent by the Governor in the name of pocket veto is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has also referred to the case of the Punjab state [The State Of Punjab vs Principal Secretary To The Governor (2023)], where it was stated that effectively withholding the assent indirectly means returning the bill.  The petitioner also stated that if the assent is withheld without returning the bill, then it would violate Article 200 of the Constitution. 

The petitioner’s representative described the conduct of the Governor as placing the Bills in the cold storage, and this eventually obstructs the legislative process. The same point was acknowledged by Justice Pardiwala. Justice Justice Pardiwala stated that the role of the Governor is that of an advisor. The Governor is not above the Legislature or the Courts, and if the Bill is constitutional, then he must assent to it. 

The petitioners also argued that sending the Bill back without any reasons undermines federalism. The representatives of the petitioners cited the case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020). When no specific time limits are mentioned in the Constitution then the courts can impose a reasonable timelimit for the same. 

Respondent’s contentions

The respondent argued that the case of the Punjab state was merely a coincidence. The respondent’s representative also claimed that the Governor has the discretion when it comes to assent. 

However, the respondent was not able to give any clear reasons on why there was a three-year delay. The respondent has argued based on Governor’s discretion, but they could not provide any support by using any constitutional time frame. There was no justification on why there was lack of reasoning as well.

Judgment of the State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu

It was stated by the Justice while giving the judgment of the case that Governors cannot delay bills or act independently. The conduct of the Governor is not above judicial review. All the bills which were not assented to by the Governor were to be considered as law since the day on which they were re-submitted for the assent of the Governor. 

Conclusion

With this case, a clear constitutional boundary is drawn. We can conclude that a Governor is a constitutional authority and not a political gatekeeper. This case is not just a conflict related to a specific state! A strong message is given by this case to all states that constitutional duties cannot be kept in cold storage. 

Frequently Asked Questions

Till when is the Governor required to assent to the Bill after the same is reconsidered by the Assembly and sent back?

The Governor must mandatorily give assent to the Bill within one month.

What is Article 142?

Article 142 gives power to the Supreme Court to take decisions in matters where complete justice is required. This Article gives power to the Apex Court to pass decrees and make orders even if they deviate from the laws which are existing.