Citation and Case Number:
Supreme Court citation: 2025 INSC 481
Writ Petition (Civil): W.P. (C) No. 1239 of 2023
FACTS
Between 2020 and 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed twelve important laws on topics like running state universities and local government. These laws were sent to the Governor for approval, as required by Article 200 of the Indian Constitution. However, the Governor did not sign them or send them back, leaving them stuck for a long time.
The Governor of Tamil Nadu at that time was Ravindra Narayana Ravi (also R. N. Ravi), who had been in office since September 18, 2021.Governor Ravi chose not to approve ten Bills and didn’t return them to the Assembly as the Constitution requires, and he also sent two of the re-passed Bills to the President even though they were unchanged.
On 31 October 2023, the Tamil Nadu government went to the Supreme Court under Article 32, arguing that the Governor’s delay was harming the Constitution and upsetting the balance between the state and the central government.
On 13 November 2023, while the case was going on, the Governor refused to approve ten of the laws but did not send them back to the Assembly as the rule required. The other two laws were sent to the President without any explanation.
Many of the Bills were about changing how universities work, like giving the state government the power to choose vice-chancellors, adding a state official to the selection committee, allowing state inquiries into universities, and even setting up a new Ayurveda university.
Other measures involved things like approving prosecution of officials, releasing prisoners early, and managing public service commission jobs, but the main fight was about university rules and the Governor’s delay.
In response, the Assembly passed the same laws again on 18 November 2023 to show they still wanted them. Even then, the Governor sent these laws to the President again, even though they were the same as before.This situation was brought before the Supreme Court in the case called State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu. A two-judge bench, Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, gave their decision on 8 April 2025.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether a Governor has the power to indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly.
- Does the Governor break the rule in Article 200 by refusing to approve a Bill and also not sending it back to the Assembly?
- Can a Bill that has been passed again by the Assembly be sent to the President if it is not changed in any important way?
- Does the Governor’s long delay count as a “pocket veto,” and is such a veto allowed under the Constitution?
- Can the Supreme Court set time limits for Governors to act by using its powers under Articles 142 and 32?
CONTENTIONS
Petitioner (State of Tamil Nadu):
The Governor took too long to act on the Bills, which went against the idea of responsible government and hurt the balance of power between the State and the Centre. This delay stopped the government from doing its work.
Article 200 says the Governor has only three choices: approve the Bill, send it back for changes, or send it to the President. By not doing any of these and just keeping the Bills pending, the Governor created something like a “pocket veto,” which is not allowed by the Constitution.
Not sending the Bills back after refusing to approve them broke the clear rule in Article 200. This rule is meant to keep the law-making process moving without delays.
After the Assembly passed the Bills again, the Governor had no choice but to approve them. Sending the same Bills to the President without any big changes was seen as misuse of power and went against the spirit of the Constitution.
The Governor should follow the advice of the Council of Ministers in most cases. The Supreme Court has said this before in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), explaining that the Governor is a head of the state, not an independent authority.
The Supreme Court should step in to protect democracy when such delays happen. It can set time limits for the Governor so that the rules are followed and government work does not stop.
Respondent (Governor/Union of India):
The Governor has the power under Article 200 to send Bills to the President if he feels it is necessary. This is meant to make sure that some important laws get a second review before they become final.
The Constitution does not say how quickly the Governor needs to act. Because of this, the Governor’s delay cannot be called against the law since there is no rule that says he must act immediately.
Sending the Bills to the President was part of the Governor’s powers. If the Supreme Court tried to control this decision, it would break the idea of separation of powers because the Governor’s role is part of the executive, not the courts.
The Governor’s side also said the petition from the State was political. They believed the real goal was to make the Governor look weak and reduce his independence, rather than fix a legal problem.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court decided in favour of the State of Tamil Nadu and said the Governor’s actions were wrong and against the Constitution. The Court explained that in India there is no such thing as a pocket veto, unlike in the United States. Article 200 gives the Governor only three choices: approve the Bill, send it back for changes, or send it to the President. Keeping the Bill without action for a long time goes against the Constitution.
The Court said that if the Governor refuses to approve a Bill, he must send it back to the Assembly for reconsideration. Not doing this breaks the rule in Article 200. If the Assembly passes the Bill again, the Governor must approve it. Sending such a Bill to the President without any big changes is not allowed.
The Court also reminded everyone about earlier cases like Nabam Rebia (2016). It said the Governor should follow the advice of the Council of Ministers in almost all cases. The Governor is a ceremonial head and should respect the elected government.
To stop such delays in the future, the Court set clear time limits using its power under Article 142. The Governor has one month to approve, return, or send a Bill to the President. If withholding approval against advice, the Governor has three months. If the Assembly passes the Bill again, the Governor must approve it within one month. These rules make sure the system works properly and that power is not misused.
Finally, the Court used Article 142 to treat 10 pending Bills as approved so that government workings would not stop. The judgment stressed that the Governor should help in the democratic process, not block it, and should respect the people’s choice.
DEFECTS OF LAW
First, Article 200 of the Constitution does not say how long the Governor can take to decide on a Bill. Because of this, Governors could delay decisions for a very long time, slowing down the law-making process.
Second, some experts think the Court went too far by setting time limits for the Governor. They believe making such rules should be done by Parliament, not by judges, and feel it’s a case of Judicial Overreach.
Third, the Constitution does not explain what counts as a “Substantial change” in a Bill that is passed again by the Assembly. This lack of clarity can cause confusion and even more legal fights. Another issue is that the Court used Article 142 to approve the Bills on its own. While this solved the problem quickly, some people worry that using this special power too much could upset the balance between the three parts of government.
Finally, even though the Court gave time limits, it did not say what would happen if the Governor ignored them. This creates a gap because there is no punishment or clear next step if the rules are broken.
All these points show that the Constitution needs updates to make sure powers are used properly and the system runs smoothly.
INFERENCE
This judgment is a very important step for India’s Constitution because it makes our democracy and federal system stronger. The Supreme Court clearly said that a Governor cannot keep a Bill without acting on it for a long time, which is called a pocket veto. By rejecting this idea, the Court made sure that elected Assemblies, which represent the people, cannot be stopped by Governors who are not elected. This helps the law-making process move smoothly and avoids unnecessary delays.
However, the Court had to create rules on its own because the Constitution does not clearly say how much time a Governor should take. This shows that there is a gap in the law. For now, the Court’s rules will work, but in the future, Parliament may need to change Article 200 to set proper time limits so that no one misuses this power.
This decision also affects politics. It reduces the chance that Governors in States ruled by parties different from the Central Government can misuse their role. It supports the idea of cooperative federalism, where the Centre and States work together fairly. It also sets an example for other States so Governors cannot block the decisions of elected governments.
In the end, this case is a big win for democracy and fairness. It reminds us that Governors should only help in the law-making process and not become obstacles. The judgment makes sure the people’s choice is respected and the government runs according to the values of the Constitution.
Bhavanya E K
Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan University, Trichy, Tamil Nadu