In a landmark judgment delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, consisting of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, on April 8, 2025, clarified and reinforced the limits and obligations of a governor’s powers under Articles 200 and 201 of the Indian constitution, concerning the withholding of assent to bills, passed by state legislatures. This judgment came in response to a writ petition filed by the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government under Article 32 of the constitution, involving the governor, R.N. Ravi, who repeatedly withheld assent to several bills, passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
Background of the Case
Between 2020 and 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed 12 important bills, mainly concerning amendments to laws governing state universities, including provisions to transfer the power of appointing vice-chancellors from the governor to the state government. In addition, several proposals—including sanctions for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, premature release of prisoners, and appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission—were submitted to the governor which remained pending without response. Citing Article 200, which mandates the governor to act on bills and requires mandatory assent once a bill is re-passed by the legislative assembly, the state filed a writ petition in October 2023, challenging the governor’s inaction as unconstitutional. In November 2023, the Supreme Court observed the delay as a serious concern and questioned whether such indefinite withholding amounted to a “pocket veto.” Consequently, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142, held the governor’s delay to be unconstitutional, and deemed the pending bills to have received assent.
Understanding Constitutional Provisions
Article 32 grants citizens the right to directly approach the Supreme Court concerning the rights to constitutional remedies, i.e., to enforce their fundamental rights, if considered to have been violated.
Article 200 empowers the governor
- to give assent to a bill; or
- to withhold assent; or
- to reserve the bill for the president’s consideration if it derogates from the powers of the high court or matters under the Union List; or
- to return the bill (if not a Money Bill) with a message or recommendations for reconsideration by the legislature.
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any matter.
Key Constitutional Questions Examined
The Supreme Court bench examined and answered several critical questions as given below:
- Does the governor possess an absolute or discretionary veto power (including “pocket veto”) to withhold assent indefinitely?
- Can the governor reserve a bill for the president after it has been re-passed by the legislature without any changes?
- Is there a mandatory timeline within which the governor must act upon receiving a bill?
- Does the governor act solely on the aid and advice of the council of ministers under Article 163?
- Are the governor’s and president’s decisions under Articles 200 and 201 immune from judicial scrutiny?
- Can courts issue writs compelling a governor or the president to act in case of undue delay?
Article 201 governs bills reserved by the governor for the president’s consideration. The president must
- grant assent; or
- withhold assent; or
- direct the governor to return the bill (except Money Bills) to the legislature.
Article 163 requires the governor to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers in the state, except in matters where governor’s discretion is expressly conferred.
SC Verdict: Major Observations and Rulings
The Supreme Court’s judgment has provided a decisive interpretation of the governor’s powers and duties. It reinforced that the governor is not an independent authority but a constitutional functionary required to act under the aid and advice of the elected government and within the boundaries of the constitutional norms.
Governor’s Constitutional Options under Article 200 Justice Pardiwala clarified that when a bill is passed by the state legislature and presented to the governor, he/she has four exclusive options under Article 200.
Accordingly, once the governor chooses to withhold assent and returns the bill to the legislature, and the legislature re-passes it (with or without changes), the governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent. He cannot reserve the bill for the president, except in rare cases where significant amendments alter the nature of the bill.
[Under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, while the governor is generally required to act on the advice of the council of ministers, there are specific exceptions where he may act in his discretion. First, as per the second proviso to Article 200, if in the governor’s opinion, a bill, upon becoming law, would derogate from the powers of the high court to endanger its constitutional position, he must reserve it for the president’s consideration, even without the advice of the council of ministers. Second, the governor must exercise discretion if the bill is related to Article 31A (acquisition of property) of State Policy, Article 31C (laws implementing the Directive Principles of State Policy), Article 254(2) (state law conflicting with a central law in the Concurrent List), Article 288(2) (state taxes on union property), and Article 360(4)(a)(ii) (during a Financial Emergency, when the Union directs that certain bills be reserved). Lastly, president’s discretion may also be exercised if the council of ministers is unable to function, or has disabled itself, or if there is a threat to democratic principles, such as a breakdown of constitutional machinery or the rule of law in the state.]
No Scope for Pocket or Absolute Veto The court rejected the idea of a pocket veto—the governor not taking any action on a bill for an indefinite period. The use of the word “shall” in Article 200 signifies a mandatory duty to act promptly. Inaction by the governor violates constitutional morality and federalism.
Citing precedents such as the 2023 Punjab Governor’s case, the court held that the governor must act “as soon as possible” and that this phrase indicates urgency, not indefinite discretion.
It also overruled the outdated interpretation based on Union of India and Others v. Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary (1979) case and clarified that bills do not lapse unless the legislature itself withdraws or abandons them.
Limits on Reservation of Bills after Reconsideration A key aspect clarified by the Supreme Court was that once a bill is returned and then re-passed by the legislature, the governor cannot reserve it for presidential consideration, as doing so would mean invoking more than one of the three constitutional options, which is impermissible.
An exception exists only if the re-enacted bill contains substantial new amendments that were not part of the earlier version and may raise fresh constitutional concerns. In such cases, reservation may be justified.
(In the Tamil Nadu case, the governor withheld assent to 10 bills without giving any message. When these were re-passed without significant changes, the governor reserved them for the president. This action was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.)
Prescribed Timelines for Governor’s Action To prevent misuse of discretionary powers and avoid legislative deadlock, the Supreme Court prescribed the following four indicative timelines for the governor’s action under Article 200:
(i) If the governor, on the advice of the council of ministers, withholds assent or reserves the bill, he/she must return it to the legislature within 1 month.
(ii) If the governor withholds assent contrary to ministerial advice, he/she must return it to the legislature within 3 months.
(iii) If the governor reserves the bill for the president contrary to advice, he/she must reserve it within 3 months.
(iv) If the legislature re-passes and re-presents the bill, he/she must grant it assent within 1 month.
These timelines are not part of the Constitution but are guiding principles derived from the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission Reports and the Supreme Court's interpretation in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs the Horible Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020). Their objective is to ensure legislative efficiency and prevent the arbitrary withholding of assent. Any unreasonable delay would be subject to judicial review.
Judicial Review of Governor’s and Presidents’ Discretion The Supreme Court held that discretionary powers under Articles 200 and 201 are not immune from judicial scrutiny. Citing cases like Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India (2006) and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the court stated that even politically coloured or arbitrary decisions by constitutional authorities can be reviewed if they violate constitutional mandates.
In case of non-compliance with the prescribed timelines or refusal to act, the state government may approach the courts seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the governor or president to perform their constitutional duties.
Article 361 provides immunity to the President and Governors from legal proceedings for acts done in their official capacity, but does not extend immunity to their decisions from judicial review.
President’s Role under Article 201 When a governor reserves a bill for the president under Article 200, the president must act under Article 201, which also provides only three options:
- Grant assent to the bill; or
- Withhold assent; or
- Return the bill to the state legislature for reconsideration.
If the bill is re-enacted, the president must once again decide. However, unlike the governor, the president is not constitutionally bound to assent after reconsideration but must record reasons for withholding assent. An arbitrary or unexplained veto is not permissible.
To ensure accountability and prevent delay, the apex court referred to the 2016 Ministry of Home Affairs memoranda, which suggest a three-month period for presidential action. Failure to act within this time could also invite judicial intervention.
Article 142 Invoked: Deemed Assent to Tamil Nadu Bills In an unprecedented move, the Supreme court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to provide complete justice in the Tamil Nadu case. The court declared that the ten bills re-passed by the state legislature were deemed to have received assent on the dates they were re-enacted.
This decision was justified on three grounds:
- Unreasonable and unexplained delay by the governor;
- Failure to provide reasons for withholding assent; and
- Constitutionally invalid action of reserving bills after already returning them onc
As a result, the president’s subsequent rejection of seven of these bills was held void ab initio (legally invalid from the outset).
Evolution of Governor’s Powers through Supreme Court Verdicts
- In Samsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that the governor must act on the council of ministers’ advice except where the constitution allows discretion.
- R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994) reaffirmed federalism as a basic structure and warned against the misuse of the governor’s discretionary powers.
- Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India (2006) clarified that governors have immunity, but their actions can be judicially reviewed if mala fide or unconstitutional.
- Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker (2016) held that governors cannot act independently in legislative matters and must follow the council’s advice.
- State of Telangana vs Secretary to Governor (2023) emphasised prompt assent to bills under Article 200 and prohibited indefinite delays by governors.
- State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to Governor (2023) ruled that governors cannot withhold assent indefinitely and must return bills for reconsideration if they disagree.
Recommendation to Use Article 143
The Supreme Court held that indefinite withholding of assent by the governor is unconstitutional, and any constitutional doubts should be resolved by referring the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 143.
Article 143 allows the president to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or fact involving constitutional interpretation.
- Following the judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, President Draupadi Murmu invoked article 143 by seeking the court’s advisory opinion on 14 specific questions regarding the powers of the president and governors to assent to state legislature bills. Although the reference did not mention the judgment explicitly, the court typically requires an undertaking to abide by its decisions before answering such references.
- While advisory opinions under Article 143 are not binding, they carry significant persuasive authority and have never been openly ignored. The court may clarify or fine-tune prior rulings, but is unlikely to overturn key directions, including the timelines for assent. Historically, only 15 such references have been made since the court’s inception, underscoring the gravity of this mechanism.
Analysis: Reactions to the Supreme Court Ruling on Governor’s Assent to Bills
The Supreme Court’s ruling imposing time limits on governors and the president to act on bills passed by state legislatures (under Articles 200 and 201) has attracted both support and criticism.
Supporters argue that this verdict strengthens democracy and federalism by preventing undue delays. Former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, P.D.T. Achary and others praised the judgment for protecting state governments and curbing political misuse of gubernatorial powers. It is seen as reinforcing elected state leadership and discouraging partisan governors.
Critics contend that Supreme Court overstepped by fixing timelines, intruding into executive functions, and violating the separation of powers. Constitutional expert and Supreme Court lawyer, Vivek Narayan Sharma, described it as “judicial legislation”, especially due to the use of Article 142 to override the president’s discretion. Concerns were also raised over the two-judge bench handling the matter instead of a larger bench as per Article 145(3). The deeming of bills as assented from submission was viewed as unprecedented and a breach of constitutional procedure.
[Art 145(3) mandates that a minimum of five judges must hear a case involving interpretation of the constitution.]
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the judgment empowers elected governments and curbs delays, it also expands judicial intervention, raising questions about the balance of power in India’s federal system.
Read more about the Presidential Reference of 14 Questions to the Supreme Court
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.
