STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS STATE OF GOVERNOR (2025)
CITATIONS : 2025 SCC Online SC 770; 2025 INSC 481 (India).
DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 8th APRIl,2022
BENCH. : Justice J. B. Pardiwala , Justice R. Mahadevan
PETITIONER. : State of Tamil nadu government secretary, government
Of Tamil Nadu
RESPONDENT : Governor of Tamil Nadu through the secretary to the
Governor ,union of India through secretary to the
Government Ministry of Home affairs
FACTS OF THE CASE
On October 31, 2023, the Tamil Nadu Government went to the Supreme Court to contest Governor R.N. Ravi’s lack of action on several Bills and proposals. The State argued that the Governor had left important issues unresolved for an unknown period without giving any reasons, which was hindering governance.
Category 1: Twelve Pending Bills (2020–2023)
From January 2020 to April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed twelve Bills and sent them to the Governor as outlined in Article 200 of the Constitution. However, the Governor neither approved nor returned these Bills for further consideration. These Bills primarily focused on changes in how state universities are managed:
– Eight Bills transferred the authority to appoint Vice Chancellors from the Governor to the state government.
– One Bill suggested including a government representative in the Vice Chancellor selection committee.
– Two Bills allowed the government to carry out inspections and inquiries instead of the Chancellor.
– Three Bills added the Finance Secretary to most university Syndicates.
– One Bill aimed to create a state-run Ayurveda University.
– One Bill gave full control over Vice Chancellor appointments to the state (except for the University of Madras).
Category 2: Approval for Prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act Between April 10, 2022, and May 15, 2023, the State sent several files asking for the Governor’s approval to prosecute public servants accused of misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These files remained unanswered and unresolved.
Category 3: Early Release of Prisoner The Tamil Nadu government sent 54 files from August 24, 2022, to June 28, 2023, suggesting that some prisoners should be released early. However, these suggestions did not receive any response from the Governor.
Category 4: TNPSC Appointments The state also pointed out that plans for appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) were also left waiting. According to Article 316 of the Constitution, these appointments are the responsibility of the Governor.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the Governor indefinitely delay assent to a bill passed by the State Legislature under Article 200?
Whether the Governor had discretion in granting assent or was obligated to follow the advice of the State government under article 163?
Whether the Governor reserve a bill for the President’s consideration even after it has been repassed by the State Legislature?
Whether the Supreme Court issue directions to the Governor regarding the time frame to act under Article 200?
Does the Governor’s inaction violate the Constitution and undermine federalism?
CONTENTION
Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, A. M. Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, and P. Wilson and Sabarish Subramanian appeared for the appellant /accused and the contetions were
Violation of Constitutional Morality & Federalism: The State argued that the Governor’s inaction violated constitutional morality by disrupting the democratic process. It claimed that the Governor’s silence or excessive delay was a threat to cooperative federalism and the integrity of elected governments.
2. Governor Must Act on Aid and Advice (Article 163):The Constitution does not permit discretion to the Governor in such matters. Except in specific situations, the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers and must act accordingly.
Prolonged inaction was claimed to be a deliberate misuse of constitutional position
3. No Power to Reserve Repassed Bills Again: After a bill is returned and then repassed by the State Legislature, the Governor has no power to reserve it again for the President.
Doing so amounts to an unconstitutional obstruction of the legislative process.
4. Doctrine of Reasonable Time Must Apply: The Governor cannot delay action indefinitely. The petitioner argued that the Court should lay down specific timeframes (like 3 months) to ensure the legislative process is not paralyzed.
5. Judicial Review is Permissible Despite Article 361:While Article 361 gives immunity to the Governor from being answerable in court, the actions taken in official capacity can be subject to judicial review.
The petition urged the Court to intervene in the interest of democracy and check arbitrary use of constitutional powers.
Attorney General of India: R. Venkataramani Appeared for the respondent and the contetions were
. Governor Has Discretion Under Article 200: argued that Article 200 allows the Governor to exercise discretion when deciding whether to give assent, return, or reserve a bill. This discretion is a safeguard against unconstitutional legislation.
2. Delay Justified for Legal and Policy Review: The Union argued that certain bills involved serious legal and constitutional questions, particularly those affecting education and law and order. Thus, delay was justified in the public interest.
3. Judicial Review Cannot Extend to Governor’s Constitutional Role: Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee contended that under Article 361, the Governor’s actions are not subject to judicial direction, and the Court cannot compel the Governor to act within a fixed time.
4. No Constitutional Bar on Reserving Repassed Bills:The Respondents claimed that the Constitution does not explicitly prevent the Governor from reserving a repassed bill. Therefore, doing so was within his constitutional discretion.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was rooted in preserving constitutional democracy, legislative supremacy, and federal balance. The Court clarified the Governor’s role under Articles 200 and 163 of the Constitution and strongly discouraged arbitrary delay in processing bills.
- Constitutional Role of the Governor Is Ceremonial, Not Political : The Court reaffirmed that the Governor is not an elected authority, but a constitutional head, who must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in rare and clearly defined exceptional situations.
“The Governor cannot act as a parallel power center to the elected government.-Justice J.B. Pardiwala
2. Article 200 Must Be Read With Reasonable Timeliness: Although Article 200 does not prescribe a time limit for giving or withholding assent, the Court interpreted the provision to imply that:The Governor must act within a reasonable time, and cannot withhold assent indefinitely.” Unjustified delay violates the spirit of the Constitution and undermines legislative supremacy.
3. Reservation of Repassed Bills Is Unconstitutional : The Court held that once the legislature repasses a bill after it is returned by the Governor, the Governor must assent to it.
Reserving the same bill again for the President is impermissible and not contemplated under Article 200. This would amount to subverting the legislative process and giving the Governor an indirect veto power, which the Constitution does not allow.
4. Governor’s Powers Are Not Absolute – Judicial Review Applie :The Court clarified that while Article 361 grants the Governor immunity from legal action in personal capacity, the Governor’s official conduct can be reviewed by the Court if it:
Disrupts constitutional functioning
Violates constitutional provisions
Leads to breakdown of democratic process
This ensures that no constitutional authority is above the law.
5. Constitutional Silence Does Not Mean Unlimited Power : The Court emphasized that constitutional silence (no time limit in Article 200) cannot be misused to delay decision-making:
“Silence must be filled with reasonableness, not arbitrariness.”
This interpretation upholds the checks and balances within the Constitution.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Judgment Date: 8 April 2025
The case exposed several critical gaps and ambiguities in the Indian Constitution, particularly in the functioning of Article 200 and Article 163, which deal with the Governor’s powers in relation to State legislation.
1.No Time Limit Prescribed Under Article 200
Defect:
Article 200 allows the Governor to give assent, withhold assent, return the bill, or reserve it for the President—but does not mention a time frame within which this must be done.[^1]
Result:
This allows Governors to delay action indefinitely, causing legislative paralysis and obstruction of the elected government’s mandate.
2. Lack of Clarity on Power to Reserve Repassed Bills
Defect: The Constitution does not explicitly say whether a Governor can reserve a bill again after it has been repassed by the State Legislature.
Result: This ambiguity allowed the Governor to undermine the will of the legislature by sending the same bills again to the President, creating a backdoor veto mechanism
.
3. Article 163 – Broad Discretion Not Clearly Defined
Defect: Article 163(1) states the Governor shall act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except where he is required to exercise his discretion.
Result: The term “discretion” is vague and undefined, allowing misuse of constitutional authority under the pretext of independent judgment.
Impact: Misuse of discretion can damage cooperative federalism and concentrate power in an unelected office.
4. Article 361 – Immunity Limits Accountability
Defect: Article 361 gives the Governor immunity from court proceedings for acts done in official capacity.
Result: While meant to protect dignity of the office, it limits judicial remedies against inaction or misuse of power.
Impact: The elected government is left powerless if the Governor refuses to act or causes unnecessary delays
5. No Institutional Mechanism to Resolve Deadlock
Defect: The Constitution provides no procedure to resolve disputes between the Governor and the State Government over pending bills.
Result: Such deadlocks require intervention by the Supreme Court, causing delay and confusion.
Need: A statutory time limit or constitutional amendment could ensure smooth governance.
INFERENCES
The Supreme Court’s verdict in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) stands as a significant milestone in safeguarding constitutional democracy and reinforcing the supremacy of elected legislatures. The judgment clearly established that Governors, though protected by Article 361, are not above constitutional scrutiny when their actions impede democratic processes. It firmly reiterated that constitutional silence—such as the absence of time limits in
Article 200—cannot be misused to delay assent to bills indefinitely. Importantly, the Court held that once a bill is repassed by the legislature, the Governor is constitutionally bound to assent and cannot reserve it again for the President. This interpretation strengthens the doctrine of legislative supremacy and prevents unelected constitutional authorities from exercising arbitrary control over law-making. The decision also emphasized that in a federal setup, harmony between institutions is essential, and power must be exercised within constitutional boundaries, not for political ends. Overall, the judgment provides much-needed clarity on the limits of gubernatorial discretion, reaffirms accountability in governance, and sets a precedent that upholds the foundational values of democracy and federalism in India.