CASE ANALYSIS: STATE OF TAMIL NADU V THE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU

Written by : Isha Taneja , LL.M , Symbiosis Law College, Pune

Judgement

Introduction

The case of State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu (W.P. (C) No. 1239 of 2023) is a significant judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of India on April 8, 2025. The case was concerned with an important constitutional standoff between the government of the state of Tamil Nadu and Governor R.N. Ravi on the issue of delay in assent being given by the Governor on bills approved by the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu. The decision makes clear the extent of the powers of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India and has significant implications for India's federal system and the relationship between state legislatures and Governors.

Background and Key Facts

The row erupted as the Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court on October 31, 2023, against the inaction of the Governor on 12 bills tabled in the state legislature between January 13, 2020, and April 28, 2023. The state claimed the delay in the granting of the assent or referring bills for the consideration of the President truncated the legislative process and curbed state autonomy.

Details of the Bills

Aspect	Details
Total Bills	12 bills, enacted between January 13, 2020, and April 28, 2023.
Initial Status	10 bills had assent withheld; 2 were reserved for the President.
Repassed Bills	10 bills repassed by the Assembly on November 18, 2023.
Governor’s Action	All 10 repassed bills reserved for the President on November 28, 2023.
President’s Response	7 bills had assent withheld, 1 was assented to, 2 were pending.
Court’s Action	Reservation on November 28, 2023, set aside; bills deemed assented on November 18, 2023, under Article 142.

In addition to bills, the case also underscored other delays by the Governor:

·        Corruption Files: There were four files dealing with corruption cases pending.

Department	Request Sent	Status
Tamil Development Dept.	May 11, 2022	Sanction accorded on November 18, 2023
Public (S.C.) Dept. (Veeramani)	September 12, 2022	Investigation report sought on July 7, 2023; resubmitted November 18, 2023
Public (S.C.) Dept. (Ramana, Vijayabaskar)	December 12, 2022	Sanction accorded on November 13, 2023
Public (S.C.) Dept. (Vijayabhaskar)	May 15, 2023	Under consideration since May 2023

·        Prisoner Release: 53 prisoner release files were in the pipeline during June and August 2023. 580 files have been received since September 2021, 362 having been accepted and 165 rejected.

·        TNPSC Appointments: Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) proposals for members' appointments were sent back on September 27 and October 27, 2023, following questioning.

·        Ministerial Matters: Postponements in ministerial decisions, such as for Senthil Balaji (dismissal stayed on June 29, 2023) and Dr. K. Ponmudy (naturalization on March 22, 2024, following court intervention)

Legal Problems

The lawsuit was focused on interpreting Article 200 of the Constitution, which regulates the powers of the Governor on state bills. The main issues of law involved:

·        Can the Governor indefinitely delay assent to bills, effectively exercising a "pocket veto"?

·        Is the Governor required to state the reasons for refusing assent or for reserving bills for the President?

·        What is a reasonable timeline for the Governor to act on bills?

·        Can the judiciary examine the actions of the Governor and issue a writ of mandamus directing action?

Additionally, Article 201, defining the President's function in the case of reserved bills, was applicable to the court's interpretation.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court, through a unanimous judgment by Judges J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, gave a 415-page verdict offering an in-depth examination of the office of the Governor. The highlights of the court's rationale are:

·        Rejection of "Absolute Veto" or "Pocket Veto": The court opined that the Indian Constitution has no "absolute veto" or "pocket veto" notion. Justice Pardiwala pointed out strongly that indefinite delays would vitiate the legislative power of the elected state assemblies and disturb the federal framework. The task of the Governor is not to be an obstruction but to enable the legislative process within constitutional limits.

·        Meaning of Article 200:

o   Grant assent.

o   Withhold assent with reasons communicated to the legislature.

o   Hold the bill in reserve for the President's attention. If the legislature passes the bill again (with or without amendments), the Governor is legally required to give assent. The court made it clear that the Governor cannot return a bill to the legislature more than once.

·        Unconstitutional Delay: The court held the delay by the Governor in moving the 10 repassed bills to be "erroneous in law and non-est" (illegal). The reservation of the bills on November 28, 2023, was quashed since it was due to an unconstitutional delay. The court also held the President’s refusal of assent to 7 bills as invalid because it was based on the Governor’s unconstitutional act.

·        Applicability of Article 142: Using its extraordinary powers, the Court declared the 10 repassed bills as assented to on November 18, 2023. This action bypassed the Governor’s delay, making the bills law.

·        Establishment of Timelines:

o   Governors must act within 3–4 weeks.

o   If reserved, the President must also act within a reasonable period. These measures aim to prevent legislative gridlock.

·        Scope of Judicial Review: The court extended judicial oversight, allowing state governments to seek a writ of mandamus if Governors delay action. Courts can now intervene in cases of arbitrary inaction.

Historical Context

The court cited precedents, including the First President’s conflict over the Hindu Code Bill in the 1950s. Then-Attorney General M.C. Setalvad had emphasized the President (and by analogy, the Governor) must function constitutionally and heed the advice of the Council of Ministers.

Implications

·        Clarification of Governor’s Role: The judgment restricts the Governor’s discretionary powers, mandating timely action. It sets a precedent for all Governors in India.

·        Strengthening Federalism: By protecting state legislatures’ authority, the judgment reinforces federal principles and deters interference from appointed Governors.

·        Judicial Activism vs. Overreach: While some celebrate the decision as bold and just, others view it as judicial overreach. Critics argue that the court overstepped its mandate by effectively rewriting constitutional norms.

·        Precedent for Other States: The ruling provides a framework for states like West Bengal and Punjab, where similar disputes are unfolding. The Supreme Court previously warned Governors in those states against undue delay.

·        Timelines for Constitutional Authorities: While enhancing accountability, the enforceability of such judicially imposed deadlines could be tested, particularly if the executive contests them.

Critical Perspectives

·        Support for Federalism: Opposition-led states such as Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Punjab saw the ruling as a win for state autonomy.

·        Concerns About Judicial Overreach: Legal scholars are wary that the judgment gives courts excessive influence over executive processes, possibly upsetting constitutional balance.

·        Federal Balance: Although the ruling empowers legislatures, it might dilute the Governor’s role as a constitutional check.

CONCLUSION

The State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu case is a landmark in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, defining the office of the Governor and upholding the canons of federalism and accountability. In rejecting the "pocket veto" and requiring timely action, the Supreme Court has safeguarded the legislative independence of states. Yet, its reliance on judicial intervention raises important questions about the judiciary’s limits in reshaping executive functions.

REFRENECES

1.     Tamil Nadu government vs Governor case: Supreme Court’s key ruling available at https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/tamil-nadu-government-vs-governor-case-supreme-courts-key-ruling-in-5-points-101744092071769.html (Last visited on May 15)

2.     Tamil Nadu Governor case: Supreme Court recalls President’s power struggle available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu-governor-case-supreme-court-recalls-first-presidents-power-struggle-over-hindu-code-bill/article69442458.ece (Last visited on May 15)

3.     Tamil Nadu vs governor: SC verdict may create imbalance in federal structure available at https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/tamil-nadu-vs-governor-sc-verdict-may-create-imbalance-in-federal-structure/articleshow/120317257.cms (Last visited on May 15)

4.     Supreme Court’s Tamil Nadu Governor verdict is judicial zeal gone too far available at https://theprint.in/opinion/supreme-court-tamil-nadu-governor-verdict/2598429/ (Last visited on May 15)

5.     Tamil Nadu Governor case: Authorities must be guided by Constitution available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu-governor-case-sc-verdict-authorities-occupying-high-offices-must-be-guided-by-values-of-constitution/article69440986.ece (Last visited on May 15)

6.     Pendency of bills before Tamil Nadu Governor: Judgement Summary available at https://www.scobserver.in/reports/pendency-of-bills-before-tamil-nadu-governor-judgement-summary/  (Last visited on May 15)