# The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 481
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-04-08
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-v-the-governor-of-tamil-nadu-anr-38568
- **Pages:** 290

## Headnote

a.
What courses of action are available to the Governor in
exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution.
b.
Whether the Governor can reserve a Bill for the consideration
of the President when it is presented to him for assent
after being reconsidered in accordance with the first
proviso to Article 200, more particularly, when he had not
reserved it for the consideration of the President in the first
instance.
c.
Whether there is an express constitutionally prescribed
time limit within which the Governor is required to act
in the exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the
Constitution.
d.
Whether the Governor in the exercise of his powers under
Article 200 of the Constitution can only act in accordance
with the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council
of Ministers or whether he has discretion in discharge of his
functions under the provision.
e.
Whether the exercise of discretion by the Governor in
discharge of his functions under Article 200 of the Constitution
could be said to be subject to judicial review? If yes, what
are the parameters for such judicial review.
f.
What is the manner in which the President under Article 201
of the Constitution is required to act once a Bill has been
reserved for his consideration by the Governor under Article
200 of the Constitution.
* Author
986
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Article 200 - The Governor has three
enumerated options when a bill is presented to him under
Article 200 - Governor can either assent, withhold or reserve
the bill for consideration of the President - Pocket veto is
not available to the Governor while exercising powers under
Article 200 - The Governor cannot keep the bill with him
without deciding on the assent:
Held: There are only three courses of action available to the
Governor to choose from when a bill is presented to him for assent
under Article 200 - The first proviso is not an independent fourth
course of action but intrinsically attached to the option of withholding
of assent - In other words, the first proviso is clarificatory and
only elaborates the procedure to be followed in case the option
of withholding of assent is invoked by the Governor - The use of
the expression "shall" in the substantive part of Article 200 read
with the expression "as soon as possible" used in the first proviso
indicates that there is no pocket veto available to the Governor while
he is exercising the powers under Article 200 - Inaction on part
of the Governor to take a decision when a bill is presented to him
under Article 200 is grossly violative of the constitutional scheme
of expediency which permeates the provision - The Governor, in
exercise of his powers under Article 200, also does not possess
any absolute veto - He is mandated to take a decision from among
the three options that are provided in the substantive part of the
Article 200 - In case of withholding of assent, the Governor is
bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the first proviso
and assent to the bill if it is ultimately presented to him for assent
after being repassed by the State legislature - The Governor may
also reserve certain bills for the consideration of the President -
However, in no case has the Governor been conferred with the
power to veto a bill which is presented to him - He is envisaged
as an intermediary stop in the journey of the bill towards becoming
an Act - When a bill comes to the Governor, he may forthwith
assent to it, or postpone the grant of assent by exercising the
option of withholding of assent but only for so long till the bill
comes back to him after reconsideration, or he may forward the
bill to the President whereupon the procedure prescribed under
Article 201 is to be followed - Thus, in none of these cases can
the Governor permanently keep a bill with him without according
assent to it, nor can he declare a simpliciter withholding of assent
thereby killing the bill. [Paras 194-198]
[2025] 4

## Text

_Characters 0–39,845 of 665,215. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39845 for what follows._

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 985 : 2025 INSC 481
The State of Tamil Nadu
v.
The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023)
08 April 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
a.
What courses of action are available to the Governor in
exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution.
b.
Whether the Governor can reserve a Bill for the consideration
of the President when it is presented to him for assent
after being reconsidered in accordance with the first
proviso to Article 200, more particularly, when he had not
reserved it for the consideration of the President in the first
instance.
c.
Whether there is an express constitutionally prescribed
time limit within which the Governor is required to act
in the exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the
Constitution.
d.
Whether the Governor in the exercise of his powers under
Article 200 of the Constitution can only act in accordance
with the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council
of Ministers or whether he has discretion in discharge of his
functions under the provision.
e.
Whether the exercise of discretion by the Governor in
discharge of his functions under Article 200 of the Constitution
could be said to be subject to judicial review? If yes, what
are the parameters for such judicial review.
f.
What is the manner in which the President under Article 201
of the Constitution is required to act once a Bill has been
reserved for his consideration by the Governor under Article
200 of the Constitution.
* Author
986
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Article 200 - The Governor has three
enumerated options when a bill is presented to him under
Article 200 - Governor can either assent, withhold or reserve
the bill for consideration of the President - Pocket veto is
not available to the Governor while exercising powers under
Article 200 - The Governor cannot keep the bill with him
without deciding on the assent:
Held: There are only three courses of action available to the
Governor to choose from when a bill is presented to him for assent
under Article 200 - The first proviso is not an independent fourth
course of action but intrinsically attached to the option of withholding
of assent - In other words, the first proviso is clarificatory and
only elaborates the procedure to be followed in case the option
of withholding of assent is invoked by the Governor - The use of
the expression "shall" in the substantive part of Article 200 read
with the expression "as soon as possible" used in the first proviso
indicates that there is no pocket veto available to the Governor while
he is exercising the powers under Article 200 - Inaction on part
of the Governor to take a decision when a bill is presented to him
under Article 200 is grossly violative of the constitutional scheme
of expediency which permeates the provision - The Governor, in
exercise of his powers under Article 200, also does not possess
any absolute veto - He is mandated to take a decision from among
the three options that are provided in the substantive part of the
Article 200 - In case of withholding of assent, the Governor is
bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the first proviso
and assent to the bill if it is ultimately presented to him for assent
after being repassed by the State legislature - The Governor may
also reserve certain bills for the consideration of the President -
However, in no case has the Governor been conferred with the
power to veto a bill which is presented to him - He is envisaged
as an intermediary stop in the journey of the bill towards becoming
an Act - When a bill comes to the Governor, he may forthwith
assent to it, or postpone the grant of assent by exercising the
option of withholding of assent but only for so long till the bill
comes back to him after reconsideration, or he may forward the
bill to the President whereupon the procedure prescribed under
Article 201 is to be followed - Thus, in none of these cases can
the Governor permanently keep a bill with him without according
assent to it, nor can he declare a simpliciter withholding of assent
thereby killing the bill. [Paras 194-198]
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
987
The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Constitution of India - Article 200 - The Governor cannot
reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President when it
is presented to him for assent after being reconsidered in
accordance with the first proviso to Article 200:
Held: There is no scope for the Governor to reserve a bill for
the consideration of the President once it is presented to him for
reconsideration after compliance with the procedure laid down in
the first proviso - The first proviso to Article 200 is a complete
code in itself as regards the procedure which is to be followed
once the Governor withholds assent and the rest of the article
has no applicability thereafter - In light of the language of Article
200, and also keeping in mind its interpretation by this Court in
State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab
(2024) 1 SCC 384, there was no room for the Governor to declare
a simpliciter withholding of assent without taking recourse to the
first proviso as that virtually amounts to the exercise of absolute
veto by the Governor, a power which is conspicuously absent from
our constitutional scheme. [Paras 204-211]
Constitution of India - Article 200 - Timelines for the Governor
to act under Article 200 - Courts can prescribe time limits for
the discharge of certain functions, even in cases where no
specific time-limit has been prescribed:
Held: 1. Unlike many countries across the globe wherein a provision
for deemed assent upon the expiry of the specified time period has
been made, there is no such provision in our Constitution - The
only manner in which a temporal imperative has been weaved
into the scheme of Article 200 is by the use of the expression "as
soon as possible" in the first proviso - The said expression, which
also appears in Article 111 of the Constitution, was the subject of
some debate in the Constituent Assembly - Governor's inaction
with respect to the bills for an unreasonable and prolonged period
of time cannot be held to be permissible within our constitutional
scheme. [Paras 217-225]
2. Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. The Hon'ble Speaker Manipur
Legislative Assembly & Ors. [2020] 2 SCR 132 discussed in the
context of the timeline for the Speaker to decide on the petitions
seeking disqualifications under the Schedule X of the Constitution -
The view adopted by the Court in Keisham Meghachandra (supra)
was that the "reasonable period" for deciding such petitions by the
988
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Speaker largely depends on the facts of each case yet, where there
are no exceptional circumstances, the Speaker should arrive at
a decision within an outer time-limit of three-months reiterated -
Ram Chand and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 1 SCC
44 discussed wherein it was held that where for exercise of any
power no time-limit has been prescribed, such power has to be
exercised within a reasonable period of time - AG Perarivalan v.
State, Through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT/MMDA, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu and Anr. (2023) 8 SCC 257 discussed wherein it was
held that the inaction of the Governor would be subject to judicial
review and in the absence of any cogent reasons for the delay, it
would be open to the courts to issue directions for a time-bound
decision on a case-to-case basis - Held, what is discernible from
a reading of the decisions discussed above is that despite there
being no prescribed time-limit for the Governor to take a decision
under Article 200, the provision cannot be read in a manner which
allows the Governor to not take action upon bills which are presented
to him for assent and thereby delay and essentially roadblock the
law-making machinery in the State. [Paras 227, 229, 230, 231]
3. Any time limit in the exercise of powers in terms of Article 200 of
the Constitution should not be construed as timelines laid within the
edifice of the provision, rather should be understood as timelines
that would serve as a lodestar for the purpose of exercise of judicial
review by the courts, a benchmark tool to aid and enable the courts
in ascertaining if any inaction or malfeasance has occasioned in
the exercise of such powers - Those timelines no doubt demand
the earnest adherence by the Governor, however, these being
nothing more than tools upon which scrutiny by judicial review is
to be premised, remain as prescriptions within the realm of judicial
review alone and do not transgress into the legislative bounds or
amount to alteration of the text or authority of Article 200 of the
Constitution. [Para 239]
4. Keeping in mind the constitutional significance of Article 200 and
the role it plays in the federal polity of the country, the following
timelines were prescribed: First, if a bill is either withheld or reserved
for the President's consideration based on the aid and advice of
the State Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to act
immediately, and in any case, within a maximum period of one
month - Second, if assent is withheld contrary to the advice of the
State Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the bill with
a message within a maximum of three months - Third, if a bill is
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
989
The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
reserved for the President's consideration contrary to such advice,
the Governor must do so within a maximum period of three months -
Finally, when a bill is presented again after reconsideration as per
the first proviso, the Governor is required to grant assent without
delay, and in any event, within one month - Failure to comply with
these timelines would make the inaction of the Governors subject
to judicial review by the courts. [Paras 250-251]
Constitution of India - Article 200 - Governor in the exercise
of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution can only
act in accordance with the aid and advice tendered to him by
the State Council of Ministers - B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India
(2019) 6 SCC 129 held to be per incuriam:
Held: 1. What flows from a study of the Constituent Assembly
debates concerning the appointment of the Governor and the
scope of his discretionary powers is that the Governor plays a
very crucial role in the political structure of the country - He is the
bridge between the governments at the Central and State level, the
proverbial buckle which ties the States with the Centre. [Para 289]
2. The second proviso to Article 200 is an instance under the
Constitution where the Governor has been conferred with the
power to act in his discretion and even against the advice of the
Council of Ministers - However, the logical sequitur to this is that
under Article 200, there is no scope for the Governor acting in his
discretion other than the second proviso. [Para 295]
3. This Court in B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India (2019) 6 SCC 129
took the view that the Constitution has entrusted the Governor with
the discretion of reserving a bill, presented to him for assent, for
the consideration of the President - It also held that the exercise
of the power of reservation of bills for the consideration of the
President could be done by the Governor contrary to the aid and
advice tendered by the Council of Ministers - The Court observed
that such an important responsibility having been conferred upon
a constitutional functionary, its discharge was expected to be
undertaken upon careful reflection and with statesmanship, and
in a manner that does not thwart democratic federalism - On the
nature of bills which may be reserved for the consideration of
the President, the Court held that it was impossible to lay down
with certainty all the situations wherein such a reference may be
warranted - This view held per incuriam since the removal of the
expression "in his discretion" from Section 75 of the Government
of India Act, 1935 when it was being adapted as Article 200
990
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of the Constitution, clearly indicates that any discretion which
was available to the Governor under the Government of India
Act, 1935 in respect of reservation of bills became unavailable
with the commencement of the Constitution - Held, the views
expressed by the members of the Constituent Assembly, which
are recorded in the debates that took place on Article 175 of the
Draft Constitution, also indicate the same - The same is also in
alignment with the fundamental tenets of responsible government
in a parliamentary democracy - The only exception to the general
principle of the Governor adhering to the aid and advice tendered
by the Council of Ministers can be traced to Article 163(1) and the
second proviso to Article 200 - Held, B.K Pavitra (supra) failed
to take into consideration the larger Bench decisions in Samsher
Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831 and M.P. Special Police
Establishment v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC
788. [Paras 303-306]
4. While construing the role of the Governor in the context of Article
200, it must be kept in mind that such a role has been envisaged
not to supplant the opinion of the Council of Ministers, but to infuse
it with his wisdom - However, once the bill is passed by the State
legislature, and presented to the Governor for assent, he must
act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as a general
rule and only in exceptional situations should he reserve it for the
consideration of the President. [Paras 307-308]
5. The option of withholding of assent, as believed by the framers,
would be invoked in very rare circumstances where the Council of
Ministers discover some error in the legislation or desire to incorporate
certain changes to it so as to meet with the popular opinion outside
the House - The framers did not expect that the Governor would,
as a matter of routine, declare the withholding of assent to bills
casually - The deletion of the expression "in his discretion" from
the first proviso is also an unmistakable indication of the intent of
the framers in vesting no discretion in the Governor as regards the
withholding of assent and returning of the bill along with suggestions
for the introduction of amendments. [Paras 310, 315, 316]
6. The Governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise
of his functions under Article 200 and has to mandatorily abide
by the advice tendered to him by the Council of Ministers - The
only exceptions to this general rule are: (a) Where the bill is of a
description as provided under the second proviso to Article 200,
(b) Where the bill is of a nature covered by Articles 31A, 31C,
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
991
The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
254(2), 288(2), 360(4)(a)(ii) etc. wherein assent of the President
is a condition precedent before the bill can take effect as law
or is necessary for the purpose of securing immunity against
the operation of some constitutional provision, and (c) Where
the bill is of a nature that, if allowed to take effect, then it would
undermine the Constitution by placing the fundamental principles
of a representative democracy in peril as described in M.P. Special
Police (supra). [Paras 318-319]
Constitution of India - Article 200 and Article 201- Actions of
the Governor and the President - Amenable to judicial review:
Held: 1. The Governor, by choosing to act in his discretion
under Article 200, has the power to thwart the entire legislative
machinery of the State by reserving a bill for the consideration of
the President - He also has the power to significantly delay the
grant of assent to a bill by withholding assent and returning the
same to the State legislature under the first proviso to Article 200
of the Constitution - The discharge of functions by the President
or the Governor as constitutional and formal heads is undoubtedly
subject to judicial review by virtue of it being an exercise of their
constitutional powers - Decision taken by the Governor under Article
200 would not be shielded from scrutiny of the courts by virtue
of the immunity accorded under Article 361 of the Constitution -
Held, the power of judicial review of the courts would be available
in respect of exercise of all powers by any authority under the
Constitution unless expressly excluded. [Paras 333, 335, 338]
2. The grant of assent to a bill is an exercise which generally
takes place on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and
assenting to the bill is the only practically possible course of action
available to the constitutional heads in most of the common law
jurisdictions - The grant of assent may not be justiciable because,
there exists an unavailability of any material upon which the courts
may be able to undertake a judicial scrutiny - However, the same
would not be the case as regards the withholding of assent or
reservation of the bill for the consideration of the President, which
can only be exercised upon furnishing of detailed reasons for the
same. [Para 358]
3. Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of
the President in his own discretion and contrary to the aid and
advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers, it shall
be open to the State Government to assail such an action before
992
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the appropriate High Court or this Court - Such a challenge can
be made on the following grounds:
(i) Where the reservation is on the ground that the bill is of a
description falling under the Second Proviso to Article 200 of the
Constitution, it may be assailed on the ground that the bill or any
provision thereof does not so derogate from the powers of the High
Court so as to endanger the position which that court is designed
by the Constitution to fill - The Governor while reserving a bill on
this count shall be expected to provide clear reasons and also
point to the specific provision(s) of the bill which, in his opinion,
attract the Second Proviso - This question being purely of a legal
nature would be completely justiciable and the competent court
would be, after a proper adjudication, fully authorized to approve
or disapprove of such reservation by the Governor - If such a
challenge finds favour with the competent court, then, subject to
any other considerations, it would be a fit case for the issuance of
a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Governor for appropriate
action - If, however, the challenge should fail then the mechanism
envisaged under Article 201 of the Constitution will spring into action.
(ii) Where the reservation is on account of the bill attracting any
provision of the Constitution wherein the assent of the President is
a condition precedent for the proper enactment and enforceability
of such a bill as a law or for the purpose of securing any immunity
(such as under Article 31A) or overcoming any repugnancy that
may exist qua a Central Legislation (under Article 254(2)), then the
Governor is expected to make a specific and clear reference to the
President properly indicating the reasons for such reservation and
inviting his attention as described in Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. and
Anr. v. National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. and
Ors. reported in (2002) 8 SCC 182 - Such a reservation can be
assailed by the State Government, if the reference made by the
Governor either fails to indicate the reasons for such reservation as
discussed above or that the reasons indicated are wholly irrelevant,
mala-fide, arbitrary, unnecessary or motivated by extraneous
considerations - Then such a reservation would be liable to be
set aside - This question being purely of a legal nature would be
completely justiciable and the competent court would be after a
proper adjudication fully authorized to approve or disapprove of such
reservation by the Governor - If such a challenge finds favour with
the competent court, then, subject to any other considerations, it
would be fit case for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
to the Governor for appropriate action - If however, the challenge
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
993
The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
should fail then the mechanism envisaged under Article 201 of the
Constitution will spring into action.
(iii) Where the reservation of a bill by the Governor for the
consideration of the President is on the grounds of peril to
democracy or democratic principles or on other exceptional grounds
as mentioned in M.P. Special Police (supra) and Nabam Rebia
& Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative
Assembly reported in (2016) 8 SCC 1 then the Governor would be
expected to make a specific and clear reference to the President
properly indicating the reasons for entertaining such a belief by
pinpointing the specific provisions in this regard and the consequent
effect that may ensue if such a bill were to be allowed to become
a law - The Governor while making such a reference should
also indicate his subjective satisfaction as to why the aforesaid
consequences that may ensue cannot be possibly curtailed or
contained by taking recourse to the constitutional courts of the
country - It shall be open to the State Government to challenge
such a reservation on the ground of failure on part of the Governor
to furnish the necessary reasons as discussed aforesaid or that
the reasons indicated are wholly irrelevant, mala-fide, arbitrary,
unnecessary or motivated by extraneous considerations - This
being a question completely capable of being determined by the
constitutional courts, would be fully justiciable.
(iv) Reservation of a bill on grounds other than the ones mentioned
above, such as personal dissatisfaction of the Governor, political
expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations is
strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be
set-aside forthwith on that ground alone - This will also encompass
reservation of a bill by the Governor after having already exercised
the option of withholding of assent in terms of Article 200 except
in such exceptional circumstance as mentioned in paragraph 204
of this judgment.
(v) Where the Governor exhibits inaction in making a decision
when a bill is presented to him for assent under Article 200 and
such inaction exceeds the time-limit as has been prescribed by
us in paragraph 250 of this judgment then it shall be open to the
State Government to seek a writ of mandamus from a competent
court against the Governor directing expeditious decision on the
concerned bill as is the mandate of the Constitution, however, it is
clarified that the Governor may successfully resist such a challenge
on providing sufficient explanation for the delay caused. [Para 367]
994
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4. Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the
President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then,
it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action
before this Court - Such a challenge can broadly be made on the
following grounds:
(i) Where a State bill has been reserved by the Governor for the
consideration of the President on the ground that assent of the
President is required for the purpose of making the bill enforceable
or securing some immunity therefore, then in such cases the
withholding of assent by the President would be justiciable to the
limited extent of exercise of such power in an arbitrary or mala
fide manner - Owing to the political nature of the assent of the
President in these categories of bills, the courts would impose a
self-restraint.
(ii) Where a State bill has been reserved by the Governor, in his
discretion, for the consideration of the President on the ground
that the bill appears to be patently unconstitutional for placing the
principles of representative democracy in peril, the withholding of
assent by the President would, in ordinary circumstances, involve
purely legal and constitutional questions and therefore be justiciable
without any impediments imposed by the doctrine of political
thicket - In such cases, it would be prudent for the President to
obtain the advisory opinion of this Court by way of a reference
under Article 143 and act in accordance with the same to dispel
any apprehensions of bias, arbitrariness or mala fides.
(iii) 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. [Para 367]
5. Summary of Court's findings on the judicial review of the
exercise of power by the President under Article 201 in withholding
assent to a bill: (a) where the bill which is under consideration is
pertaining to a provision of the Constitution where primacy has
been given to the Union government in taking a decision keeping
in consideration the desirability of having certain uniform standards
of national policy, then the limited grounds of judicial review would
be based on arbitrariness, mala fides, etc. and (b) where the bill
which is under consideration pertains to a subject matter or domain
within which State legislature has been accorded primacy, and the
reservation of the bill is by the Governor contrary to the aid and
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
995
The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
advice of the State Council of Ministers, then in exercise of judicial
review the courts would be competent to look into the reasons for
withholding of assent and whether they are legally tenable or not,
besides the grounds of mala fides and arbitrariness, etc. [Para 368]
Constitution of India - Article 200 - Timelines for the President
under Article 201 to decide on the Bill reserved for his
consideration by the Governor under Article 200:
Held: 1. The Court deems it appropriate to adopt the timeline
prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Office
Memorandum dated 04.02.2016 issued by the Ministry of Home,
Government of India, and 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 States are also required
to be collaborative and extend co-operation by furnishing answers
to the queries which may be raised and consider the suggestions
made by the Central government expeditiously. [Paras 385-391]
2. After due consultation with the State government, the President
may either declare assent to the bill or he may declare that he
withholds assent thereto - It would not be appropriate for the
President to declare withholding of assent without first seeking
clarifications from the State government as is mentioned in the
guidelines featuring in the Office Memorandums - If, in the course
of discussions, the State government expresses willingness
to make such changes to the bill as may be suggested by the
Central government, then it would be open to the President to
seek reconsideration of the bill by invoking the proviso, and upon
the bill being re-considered and passed with such changes, the
President may grant assent thereto. [Para 401]
3. After the bill is sent with a message to State legislature by the
President and they repass it, with or without amendments, the
President would be empowered to take a final call on the giving or
withholding of assent on the bill concerned - If he chooses to assent
to the bill, it would become law - There is no gainsaying to the fact
that the President under Article 201 is conferred with the power
to withhold a bill during the second round, without activating any
other procedure, effectively bringing the legislative process vis-à-vis
that same bill to an end, in contrast to the scheme of Article 200
996
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
wherein the Governor must mandatorily accord his assent to a Bill
which is presented to him for the second time. [Para 404]
4. However, if he chooses to withhold his assent, the bill will not
take birth as law - It must, however, be noted that even during
the withholding of assent of a bill received on the second round,
the President would be required to assign clear and sufficiently
detailed reasons for arriving at such a decision - Even in the second
round, he has no power whatsoever to exercise absolute veto, as
the Constitution does not provide anywhere that withholding of
assent can be done simpliciter. [Para 405]
Constitution of India - Article 200 - Governor cannot reserve
a reconsidered bill for consideration of the President - Article
142 exercised to grant deemed assent:
Held: 1. The Governor first withheld the ten bills under question and
later despite the said Bills being repassed by the State legislature
and presented before him again under the first proviso to Article
200, still reserved them for the consideration of the President - The
clear language in which the first proviso is couched, there would
never arise, except in extraordinary situations, any occasion for
the Governor to reserve a reconsidered bill for the consideration
of the President - The said bills, in the absence of any message
given by the Governor under the first proviso, were taken up for
reconsideration by the State Assembly and passed in their original
form, and presented to the Governor for his assent - Thus, it was
not open to the Governor to reserve the bills for the consideration of
the President and he ought to have granted assent - Considerable
time has elapsed since these ten Bills were originally passed and
presented to the Governor for assent - Two out of the ten Bills even
date back to 2020 - It is important to keep in mind that the tenure
of the State legislature is of five years and the representatives
are accountable to their electorate as regards the enactment of
legislations addressing the issues faced by the electorate - At
the end of every five years, the elected representatives have to
go back to their electorate and provide a report card, based upon
which the people, in whom the ultimate sovereignty rests, cast their
votes - Bills, if kept pending for long despite their passage by the
State legislature, militate against this very fundamental, essential
to the sustenance of a representative democracy based on direct
elections. [Paras 430-431]
2. The conduct exhibited on part of the Governor, as it clearly
appears from the events that have transpired even during the
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
997
The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
course of the present litigation, has been lacking in bona fides -
There have been clear instances where the Governor has failed
in showing due deference and respect to the judgments and
directions of this Court - In such a situation, it is difficult to repose
our trust and remand the matter to the Governor with a direction
to dispose of the bills in accordance with the observations made
by the Court in this judgment - Article 142 empowers the Court
to do complete justice and in the facts of the present case, more
particularly, in light of the fact that the option of granting assent to
the repassed bills was the only constitutionally permissible option
available with the Governor, it is deemed absolutely necessary and
appropriate to grant that very relief by exercising our extraordinary
powers - No meaningful purpose would be served by keeping the
bills, some of which have already been pending for incredulously
long periods, pending for more time - The ten Bills deemed to
have assented on the date when they presented to the Governor
after being reconsidered by the State legislature. [Para 432]
Case Law Cited
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [1994] 2 SCR 644 : (1994) 3 SCC 1;
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India [2006] 1 SCR 562 : (2006)
2 SCC 1; Kihoto Holohan v. Zachillhu [1992] 1 SCR 686 : (1992)
Supp. 2 SCC 651; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh [1964]
2 SCR 197 : AIR 1963 SC 1618; The State of Telangana v. Secretary
to Her Excellency the Hon'ble Governor for the State of Telangana
& Anr. (2024) 1 SCC 405; Ram Chand and Ors. v. Union of India
and Ors. [1993] Supp. 2 SCR 558 : (1994) 1 SCC 44; Keisham
Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly
and Ors. [2020] 2 SCR 132 : (2021) 16 SCC 503; M/s North
Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Ashok Mills,
CA No. 2669 of 2023; Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of
Income-Tax [2023] 12 SCR 979 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1004;
Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala [1962] Supp. 1 SCR
753 : 1961 SCC OnLine SC 361; State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja
Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga [1952] 1 SCR 889 : (1952)
1 SCC 528; Durga Pada Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1972) 2
SCC 656; Periyammal (Dead) thr. LRs & Ors. v. Rajamani & Anr.
Etc., 2025 INSC 329 : [2025] 3 SCR 540; B.P. Singhal v. Union
of India [2010] 6 SCR 589 : (2010) 6 SCC 331; Maru Ram v.
Union of India [1981] 1 SCR 1196 : (1981) 1 SCC 107; State of
Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta [2013] 1 SCR 1 : (2013) 3 SCC 1; Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454 : (1992) Supp.
998
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3 SCC 217; State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [1978] 1 SCR
1 : (1977) 3 SCC 592; Minerva Mills v. Union of India [1981] 1
SCR 206 : (1980) 3 SCC 625; A.K. Kaul v. Union of India [1995]
3 SCR 469 : (1995) 4 SCC 73; Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P.
[2006] Supp. 7 SCR 81 : (2006) 8 SCC 161; Bharat Sevashram
Sangh v. State of Gujarat [1986] 3 SCR 602 : (1986) 4 SCC 51;
In Re: The Special Courts Bill, 1978 [1979] 2 SCR 476 : (1979)
1 SCC 380 - referred to.
State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab
[2023] 15 SCR 777 : (2024) 1 SCC 384; Nabam Rebia & Bamang
Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly
[2016] 6 SCR 1 : (2016) 8 SCC 1; Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. and
Anr. v. National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. and
Ors. [2002] Supp. 2 SCR 555 : (2002) 8 SCC 182; Samsher
Singh v. State of Punjab [1975] 1 SCR 814 : (1974) 2 SCC 831;
AG Perarivalan v. State, Through Superintendent of Police CBI/
SIT/MMDA, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and Anr. [2022] 7 SCR 1048 :
(2023) 8 SCC 257 - relied upon.
B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India [2017] 1 SCR 631 : (2017) 4 SCC
620 - held per incuriam.
S. Ramakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad
5207 - referred to.
Reference Re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada, 1981
SCC OnLine Can SC 77; Galati v. Governor-General of Canada
[2015] FC 91; Gallant v. The King [1949] 2 DLR 425; Eastgate v.
Rozzoli (1990) 20 NSWLR 188; Regina (Miller) v. Prime Minister
(Lord Advocate and others intervening) [2019] 3 WLR 589; Baker v.
Carr, 1962 SCC OnLine US SC 40; Re Constitutional Reference
No 1 of 2008 [2009] 1 LRC 453; Republic of Vanuatu v Carcasses
[2010] 2 LRC 264 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
8, Constituent Assemb. Deb., (May 30, 1949); 8, Constituent
Assemb. Deb, (Jun. 1, 1949); 9, Constituent Assemb. Deb., (Aug. 1,
1949); 10, Constituent Assemb. Deb., (Oct. 17, 1949); Jessica J.
Richardson, Modernisation of Royal Assent in Canada, 27 Can.
Parliam. Rev.2, 32 (2004), http://www.revparl.ca/27/2/27n2_04e_
Richardson.pdf; Nicholas Barber, Can Royal Assent Be Refused
on the Advice of the Prime Minister?, UK Constitutional Law
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
999
The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Association (Apr. 7, 2025, 9:45 PM), https://ukconstitutionallaw.
org/2013/09/25/nick-barber-can-royal-assent-be-refused-on-theadvice-of-the-prime-minster/; David Torrance, Royal Assent, House
Of Commons Library (Feb. 26, 2024), https://researchbriefings.files.
parliament.uk/documents/cbp-9466/cbp-9466.pdf; Dept. of Prime
Minister & Cabinet, Austl. Govt., Legislation Handbook (2017); 5,
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India 6318
(LexisNexis 2009); K.C. Markandan, Centre State Relations The
Perspective 120 (ABS Publications 1986) - reffered to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
Representation of the People Act, 1951; Government of India Act,
1935; Government of India Act, 1919; Aundh State Constitution Act,
1939; Government of Mysore Act, 1940; Government of India Act,
1858; United Kingdom: Judicial Committee Act, 1833; Canada: Royal
Assent Act, 2002; Constitution Act, 1867; Strengthening Canadian
Citizenship Act, 2014; United States of America: Constitution of
the United States; New Zealand: Constitution Act, 1852; Australia:
Constitution Act, 1889; Ireland: Constitution of the Ireland; Singapore:
Constitution of Singapore; Sri Lanka: Constitution of Sri Lanka;
Republic of Kiribati: Constitution of Kiribati; Fiji: Constitution of Fiji,
2013; Fiji Independence Order, 1970; Solomon Islands & Antigua
and Barbuda: Constitution of the Soloman Islands; Constitution of
Antigua and Barbuda; Pakistan: Constitution of the Islamic Republic
of Pakistan; Germany: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of
Germany; Constitution of Berlin; Italy: Constitution of the Italian
Republic; France: Constitution of October 4, 1958.
List of Keywords
Constitution of India; Governor; President; Deemed Assent;
Withholding of assent; Pocket veto; Absolute veto; Federalism;
Centre-State Relations; Sarkaria Commission; Puncchi
Commission; Tamil Nadu; Bills; Article 200; Article 201; Article
142; Inherent power of the Supreme Court; Discretion of the
Governor and the President.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239
of 2023
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
1000
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi,
P.wilson, Sr. Advs., Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Mohd. Yasir, Ms. Jahnavi
Taneja, Sabarish Subramanian, Poornachandiran R, Siddarth
Seema, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Apoorv Malhotra, Lokesh Krishna,
Danish Saifi, Aravind A, Saran Raghunadhan S.
Advs. for the Respondents:
R Venkatramani, Attorney General for India, Vikramjit Banerjee,
ASG, Ms. Madhavi Goradia Divan, Nl Rajah, Sr. Advs., Prashant
Rawat, Ms. Rashi Mangal, Kartik Dey, Abhishek Goel, Kanu
Agarwal, Padmesh Mishra, Arkaj Kumar, Chitvan Singhal, Raman
Yadav, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Kartikay Aggarwal, Ms. Ameya
Vikrama Thanvi, Ms. Sonali Jain, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Manoj
Ranjan Sinha, Mrigank Prabhakar, Vishal Agrawal, Siddharth Sahu,
S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, T. Bhaskar
Gowtham, D. Bharat Kumar, Mrs. Aarthi Rajan.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
For the convenience of the exposition, this judgment is divided in
the following parts:
INDEX*
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX .....................................................................
5
i.
Factual background with respect to assent to bills. .............
5
ii.
Factual background with respect to accord of sanction
for investigation into cases of corruption against public
servants. .................................................................................
17
iii. Factual background with respect to the files pertaining to
premature release of prisoners. ............................................
19
iv. Factual background with respect to the appointments to the
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). ..............
20
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
1001
The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
v.
Factual background with respect to dismissal of ministers
and allocation of ministries.