Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court’s Verdict in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023]
J. (J.B. Pardiwala) and J. (J.B. Pardiwala)
Corum: J. (R. Mahadevan) and J. (R. Mahadevan)
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
The judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023, titled State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr., constitutes a landmark constitutional pronouncement addressing the persistent erosion of federal principles and the flagrant subversion of constitutional duties by a non-elected gubernatorial office. It traverses the legal, institutional, and philosophical dimensions of gubernatorial responsibility within the Indian constitutional architecture and delineates the inviolability of parliamentary supremacy and ministerial accountability within a federal framework.
Having regard to the unduly long period of time for which these Bills were kept pending by the Governor before the ultimate declaration of withholding of assent and in view of the scant respect shown by the Governor extraneous considerations that appear to be writ large in the discharge of his functions, we are left with no other option but to exercise our inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for the purpose of declaring these ten Bills as deemed to have been assented on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the State legislature i.e., on 18.11.2023.
The litigation arose from an unprecedented constitutional deadlock precipitated by the sustained inaction and arbitrary conduct of the Governor of Tamil Nadu in respect of his functions under Article 200 and related provisions of the Constitution. The State Government approached the Apex Court under Article 32, seeking redress against the Governor’s calculated inertia, manifest in his failure to discharge essential constitutional functions, including assent to bills, sanctioning of criminal prosecutions, approval of early release of convicts, appointment to constitutional posts, and reallocation of ministerial portfolios.
Central to the controversy was the Governor’s intransigent withholding of assent to twelve bills duly passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly between 2020 and 2023. Ten of these were returned without any message for reconsideration as mandated under the first proviso to Article 200, while two were unilaterally reserved for Presidential consideration. This conduct was not only procedurally deficient but constitutionally perverse. The Governor’s action of returning bills without adherence to the procedural mechanism of the Constitution represents an egregious breach of constitutional duty and a usurpation of legislative supremacy.
Where the President exhibits inaction in making a decision when a bill is presented to him for assent under Article 201 and such inaction exceeds the time-limit as has been prescribed by us in paragraph 391 of this judgment then it shall be open to the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus from this Court.
More disturbingly, upon repassage of the ten returned bills by the legislature without material alteration, the Governor further subverted constitutional discipline by reserving the same for the President’s consideration. The invocation of Presidential reservation post-repassage was neither contemplated by the constitutional text nor supported by precedent. This amounted to a mala fide circumvention of the legislative will and a direct assault on representative democracy.
The Supreme Court emphatically affirmed that no constitutional authority, including the Governor or President, can exercise powers in a vacuum of accountability. Constitutional power is not synonymous with arbitrary prerogative. The Court restated the doctrine that gubernatorial discretion, whether under Article 200 or 201, is circumscribed by the principles of constitutional morality, ministerial accountability, and judicial scrutiny.
The Apex Court denounced the notion of a “pocket veto,” holding that indefinite deferral of gubernatorial action is antithetical to the constitutional scheme. The phrase “shall declare” in Article 200 was interpreted to impose an imperative obligation, ruling out the permissibility of prolonged silence. The failure to act expeditiously, or the adoption of obstructive non-action, constitutes a dereliction of constitutional responsibility and invites judicial intervention.
The Governor’s purported reliance on legislative repugnancy under Article 254 to justify reservation of the repassed bills for Presidential consideration was categorically rejected. The Governor had previously acknowledged the intra vires nature of the bills under the State and Concurrent Lists, only to subsequently assert legislative repugnancy post-repassage without legal coherence or factual justification. The Apex Court observed that such arbitrary recharacterisation of legislative competence was devoid of bona fides and reflected a politically motivated stratagem rather than a principled constitutional analysis.
Further, the Court clarified that the first proviso to Article 200 forecloses the Governor’s option to reserve the bill once it has been returned and re-enacted by the Legislature. The Constitution expressly mandates that once the Legislature reconsiders and repasses a bill, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent. Any deviation from this directive amounts to a constitutional fraud on the legislative process.
The judgment also scrutinised the role of the President under Article 201. The Apex Court underscored that Presidential withholding of assent must not be shrouded in opacity or devoid of rationale. The exercise of Presidential power must be reasoned, transparent, and based on the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet. The Court asserted that non-speaking orders of assent denial violate the principles of natural justice and undermine the accountability of constitutional offices.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that in the Indian constitutional scheme, the Governor is a nominal head, bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in all but a few explicitly demarcated circumstances. The insertion of discretion into Article 200, where none exists, is a constitutional perversion. The Governor’s conduct in the present case revealed a dangerous proclivity toward arrogating substantive powers to himself, contrary to the foundational tenets of responsible government.
The attempt to exercise independent discretion in the matter of prosecutorial sanction, premature prisoner release, and appointments to constitutional offices was found to be ultra vires the Constitution. In each instance, the Governor’s actions were characterised by obfuscation, delay, and refusal to act in consonance with elected executive authority.
The Governor’s refusal to swear in Dr. K. Ponmudy, despite the Supreme Court’s order staying his conviction, was treated with unequivocal judicial displeasure. The Court condemned this conduct as an affront to constitutional order and a violation of judicial authority. The Governor’s misplaced invocation of “constitutional morality” to deny the reappointment was adjudged to be constitutionally indefensible and devoid of any legal basis.
The judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu is a seminal reaffirmation of the constitutional limits of gubernatorial authority. It delineates, with rigorous clarity, that the Governor is a constitutional functionary, not a political arbiter or an autonomous veto point. It reasserts the supremacy of legislative will, the primacy of ministerial advice, and the subjection of all constitutional offices to the discipline of judicial review.
The decision decisively curtails the creeping tendency of unelected constitutional actors to obstruct elected governments through constitutional subterfuge. It represents a robust jurisprudential bulwark against the politicisation of gubernatorial discretion and restores fidelity to the foundational ethos of Indian federalism.
The position of law is settled that even where no time-limit is prescribed for the exercise of any power under a statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time. The exercise of powers by the President under Article 201 cannot be said to be immune to this general principle of law. Keeping in mind the expedient nature of the provision and having regard to the reports of Sarkaria and Puncchi Commissions, as well as the Memorandum dated 04.02.2016 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, we prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received. In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.
The Judgment delivered on April 08, 2025