SC Judgment on Governor’s Assent

Syllabus

GS 2: Indian Constitution

Why in the News?

Recently, on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu, clarifying the Governor’s role in granting assent to Bills, with judicial review and a time limit.

SC Judgment on Governor’s Assent

Introduction

  • On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
  • This ruling has provided long-overdue clarity on the powers and duties of a Governor regarding state Bills, especially under Article 200.

Background of the Case

  • The Governor of Tamil Nadu, R.N. Ravi, had kept 10 Bills pending for several years without taking any decision.
  • These Bills were later passed again by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and sent back to the Governor.
  • Instead of giving his assent or returning them, the Governor forwarded the Bills to the President of India.
  • This action was taken only after the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court for redress.

Supreme Court’s Decision

  • A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan ruled that the Governor’s move to send the Bills to the President after the Assembly re-passed them was unconstitutional.
  • The Court struck down both the Governor’s action and the President’s subsequent decision to withhold assent.
  • Using its extraordinary powers under Article 142, the Court declared that all 10 Bills shall be considered as having received assent.

Unprecedented Legal Action

  • This marks the first time in Indian constitutional history that the Supreme Court declared state Bills, which were denied assent by the President, as passed.
  • The Court used Article 142 to address what it called an “extraordinary situation” created by the “extraordinary action” of the Governor.
  • The judgment has far-reaching implications for federalism and the functioning of state legislatures.

Similar Situations in Other States

  • Tamil Nadu is not the only state affected by such inaction from Governors.
  • Similar issues have occurred in Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab, where Governors sat on state Bills without taking any steps.
  • Kerala has also approached the Court regarding this issue, and its case is pending.

Article 200: Procedure for Governor’s Assent

  • Article 200 of the Constitution outlines the steps a Governor must follow when a Bill is presented to them:
    • Give assent to the Bill,
    • Withhold assent, or
    • Reserve it for the consideration of the President.
    • If the Governor withholds assent, they must declare it clearly.

Does the Bill Die If Assent is Withheld?

  • Earlier interpretations suggested that if a Governor withholds assent, the Bill dies.
  • However, in State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another (2023), the Court clarified:
    • Withholding assent does not kill the Bill.
    • The Governor must send it back to the legislature for reconsideration.
    • The legislature can re-pass the Bill with or without amendments.
    • Once re-passed, the Governor is constitutionally bound to assent.

Supreme Court’s Explanation

  • The Court restated that a Governor, as an unelected head of the state, cannot simply block legislation by indefinitely withholding assent.
  • It emphasized that if the Governor withholds assent, it must lead to legislative reconsideration and not inaction.
  • The intent is to protect the will of an elected legislature and prevent a veto-like situation by the Governor.

Clarity on Time Limit for Assent

  • One of the most significant parts of the ruling was the fixing of a time limit for assent.
  • The Court held:
    • The Governor or President must decide within a reasonable timeframe — ideally between one and three months.
  • This step was necessary because the Governor of Tamil Nadu had delayed decisions for years.

Legal Justification for Time Limit

  • The Court justified this timeline by interpreting Article 200’s procedures as inherently time-sensitive.
  • Even though the Constitution does not explicitly mention a deadline, the Court invoked the legal principle:
  • Where no specific time limit is prescribed, powers must be exercised within a “reasonable period.”
  • Long delays, as seen in this case, threaten the federal structure and legislative functioning of states.

Discretion of Governor: On Whose Advice?

  • The Court addressed whether a Governor can act on their own discretion while withholding assent or sending Bills to the President.
  • It ruled that such actions must be based on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
  • If a Bill is returned to the legislature and passed again, the Governor must give assent — they have no veto power.

A Logical Dilemma: Who Advises Whom?

  • The judgment presents a practical dilemma:
    • If the Governor can suggest amendments and return the Bill, how can they be doing so on the advice of the same Council of Ministers who passed it?
    • Why would a majority government advise the Governor to propose changes it does not support?
  • This inconsistency remains unresolved, as past benches have delivered varying interpretations on this point.

Judicial Review of Constitutional Authorities

  • The most significant legal principle established is that no authority under the Constitution is immune from judicial review.
  • This includes:
    • The Governor under Article 200, and
    • The President under Article 201.
  • The Court stressed that every exercise of constitutional power must be accountable and subject to scrutiny.

Response and Criticism

  • Kerala Governor openly criticized the judgment, calling it an instance of “judicial overreach.”
  • He argued that constitutional changes are the sole domain of Parliament, not the judiciary.
  • Some legal experts questioned whether a two-judge Bench had the authority to interpret constitutional provisions that arguably require a Constitution Bench.

Court’s Defence and Clarification

  • The Court clarified that it had not changed the Constitution.
  • It merely interpreted Articles 200 and 201 to ensure the constitutional machinery is not misused.
  • The Court held that these issues did not involve a “substantial question of law” requiring a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3).

Broader Implications for Indian Federalism

  • India has previously faced similar issues:
    • The President once held back a postal Bill for years with no action.
    • This left the Union Government helpless.
  • Such instances reveal the urgency of amending constitutional provisions to prevent misuse.

Need for Constitutional Amendments

  • The Court’s judgment has highlighted the structural weaknesses in Articles 200 and 201.
  • To ensure Governors and Presidents cannot arbitrarily delay Bills, Parliament must consider:
    • Setting fixed time limits.
    • Clearly defining the scope of discretion.
    • Making assent processes more transparent and accountable.
  • This verdict may act as a precedent for future cases where constitutional authorities delay or avoid action on crucial legislation.

Conclusion

This landmark judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate and democratic principles. It ensures timely assent to Bills and prevents misuse of gubernatorial discretion, protecting the federal balance and strengthening legislative sovereignty in India’s democratic framework.

Source

The Hindu

Mains Practice Question

Examine the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) regarding the Governor’s role in giving assent to Bills. Discuss its impact on India’s federal structure.