Pari Kaushik is a first-year B.Com LL.B (Hons.) student at Lloyd Law College with a strong interest in legal research. She has gained practical experience through internships involving legal drafting, case-law analysis, and research. Pari has authored multiple legal articles on contemporary legal. With a proven record of academic excellence and organizational leadership, she is committed to developing her legal skills and contributing meaningfully to the legal profession.
Case Title– The State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu & the Union of India
Court– Supreme Court of India
Bench Type– Constitutional bench
Bench– J. B. Pardiwala, J. and R. Mahadevan,
Date of judgement– 8 April 2025
INTRODUCTION
The judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu & the Union of India was delivered by the bench of two judges of Supreme Court. The court ruled that the governor does not enjoy unlimited veto power that is stated in Article 200 of the Constitution. There was also a conflict between the democratically elected state government and the governor appointed by the president in different parts of the country. One of the sharpest conflicts between elected government and governor was there in Tamil Nadu which compelled the state government to file the petition before the guardian of the constitution. This case comes out as a landmark judgment which stated proper timelines for the governor to act upon the bills that is passed to him/her by the state legislature.[1]
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Ravindra Narayan Ravi has been in position of the Chief Executive of the State Tamil Nadu from 18th September 2021 under Article 153 of the Constitution of India. As a Governor, He is responsible for acting on the Bill passed by the State Legislature in accordance with Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution. From 13th January 2020 to 28th April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed 12 bills, but no action was taken on these bills for a very long period of time. The bills were passed by a democratically elected legislature. The bills still remain pending without any assent, rejection, or return for consideration, leading to many concerns from the side of the state government regarding the delay and inactions. Feeling distressed about the pendency of the bills, the State of Tamil Nadu filed a repetition in October 2023 before the Guardian of the Constitution, addressing the constitutional impasse caused by the Governor’s inaction on the bills passed by the democratically elected state legislature. The petition stated that such kind of delays undermined the legislative authority of the state and violated the principles of federalism and constitutional governance. Becoming aware of filing of writ petition, the Governor, R. N. Ravi took action on the pending bills. He withheld 10 out of 12 bills for the reconsideration by the state legislature. Exercising his power under Article 201, he reserved 2 bills for the consideration of the President of India, Draupadi Murugan. This event raised questions regarding the timings and the intent behind the Governor’s action. In response to the Governor’s decision of reconsideration of the bills, Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly conducted a special session on November 18, 2023, during which the 10 bills were re-enacted in the legislature. Thus, when the state legislature passed the same bill, it clearly demonstrated that the elected representative of people still wanted those laws to be made and the repeated approvals made it Governor’s responsibility under the Constitution to take decisions on those bills. This decision could be either giving the assent or following the proper constitutional procedure instead of delaying or ignoring them. The Governor, R. M. Ravi, without even consulting with the State Council of Ministers, reserved the 10 repassed bills for the consideration of the President, Draupadi Murmu, on November 28, 2025. This action further intensified the dispute and raised serious concerns regarding the Governor’s discretionary powers. In the hearing of the writ petition, the court suggested a cooperative way to resolve the problem. Acting upon the court’s suggestion, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M. K. Stalin, and Governor Ravi met in an attempt to resolve the matter. However, the meeting didn’t turn out to be fruitful, and the constitutional deadlock continued. The writ petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu remained pending before the Supreme Court of India. The apex Court continued hearing the matter and examined the scope and limits of the Governor’s power under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The Court took responses and submissions from both the sides of the State Government as well as the Governor, focusing on the issue for prolonged delay or in granting assent to the bills. During the proceedings, the court made oral observations expressing concern over the indefinite pendency of bills. The court stated that such delays could affect the functioning of the elected legislature and may hamper the welfare process of the citizens of a state. This matter has raised very important constitutional questions like
- Is the action of the governor constitutional
- The powers of the governor, third, the requirement to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers,
- The principles of democracy, federalism and constitutional morality
This case came as a forum of a large national debate on governor-state relationship, similar to disputes involving other states too. The Supreme Court indicated that this issue required a proper judicial clarification as to how the governor need to exercise his powers so that there should not be any problem in the legislative processes. The matter was further reserved for the consideration with the court expected to lay down guidelines or principles that governs the role of the governor of the state.
FINDINGS AND JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The court stated that an unreasonable delay by the governor in acting on the bill is unconstitutional. The governor cannot keep the bill pending for an indefinite period of time without any explanation. The court further added that in exceptional cases, it may exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure a fair and just decision. Accordingly, the court also added that the concept of deemed assent, meaning that where unconstitutional delay is established, the bill may be treated as having received an assent from the governor. So now all the 10 bills have been got the assent and now they are the laws.[2]
Now, the Supreme Court of India has laid down certain timelines for the government’s action to prevent conflict between the elected representatives and the appointed executors.
- Action by the Legislature; If the Governor returns any bill for reconsideration, the State Legislature must repass the bill within a period of one month.
- Governor acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; If the Governor wants to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, he must withhold assent or reserve the bill for the President within one month.
- Governor acting against the advice of the Council of Ministers; If the Governor acts against the advice of the Council of Ministers, if the Governor proposes to withhold assent or reserve the bill contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, such action should be taken within three months. Also, in such cases, the Governor must also provide a detailed explanation for the decision.
The apex court has put some limitations in governor’s power as well. The court held that governor does not possess any absolute veto power over state legislation. It added that governor’s role is not political but constitutional and the governor might exercise within the limits of the constitution and established protocols.
CONCLUSION
The State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the Union of India was an important decision of the Supreme Court that clarifies and explains the role of the Governor, as well as puts some limitations on the Governor under the Indian Constitution. The Court made it clear that the Governor does not enjoy unlimited power to delay a bill passed by the State Legislature under Article 200. Such powers, like veto power, if misused, can harm democracy and disturb the balance between the elected government and the Chief Executive of the State. This case arose because several bills passed by the State Government of Tamil Nadu were kept pending for a long period of time without any explanation by the Governor. The Supreme Court also observed that such delay affects the functioning of the government and prevents the implementation of laws that are meant for public welfare and well-being. The Court also emphasized that the Governor cannot remain inactive for a long period of time, as it weakens the authority of a democratically elected legislature.
One of the most important points of this judgment is that the Supreme Court has now fixed timelines for action on bills. The Court laid down specific time limits for the Legislature to re-pass a bill and for the Governor to either assent to or withhold assent or reserve the bill for the President. These timelines will ensure that, in future, no conflict arises between the State Government and the Governor, ensuring the smooth functioning of the Legislature. The Court also introduced the idea of deemed assent in cases of constitutional delay. This means that the bill will be passed and will be termed as a law. The judgment further states that the Governor must generally act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The role of the Governor is constitutional, not political. Any decision against the Constitution will lead to weakening of constitutional provisions. Overall, the judgment strengthens democracy, protects federalism, and ensures that authorities act responsibly within the framework of the Constitution.
[1] State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023 (S.C. India Apr. 8, 2025) (Pardiwala and Mahadevan, JJ.).
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 142 (empowering the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as necessary for complete justice). See also Constitution of India, Article 142, indiankanoon.org.
Ghostline Legal