Context

• On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a momentous verdict in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu.
• The judgement fundamentally altered the legal and constitutional discourse surrounding the Governor’s role in granting assent to Bills.
• This decision has been hailed as historic, not only for its immediate legal implications but also for its long-term impact on India's federal structure, legislative autonomy, and constitutional interpretation.

Background: A Constitutional Crisis

• At the heart of the case was a prolonged impasse created by the Governor of Tamil Nadu, R.N. Ravi, who had withheld action on ten Bills passed by the State Assembly for several years.
• When the Assembly re-passed these Bills and submitted them again, the Governor, rather than providing assent as mandated by Article 200 of the Constitution, forwarded them to the President of India.
• This action was taken only after the Tamil Nadu Government approached the Supreme Court for relief.
• The Court, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, deemed this move unconstitutional.
• It held that the Governor’s act of reserving the Bills for the President's consideration at that late stage violated the constitutional scheme.
• In a decisive and unprecedented move, the Court struck down both the Governor’s and the President’s actions, the latter having withheld assent, and invoked Article 142 to declare that all ten Bills shall be deemed to have received presidential assent.
• This extraordinary step was warranted, the Court noted, by an equally extraordinary constitutional logjam.

Major Aspects of Supreme Court’s Judgement

• Article 200 and the Myth of a Bill’s Demise
  • The ruling significantly demystifies the provisions of Article 200, which outlines the options available to a Governor upon receiving a Bill from the State legislature: assent, withholding of assent, or reservation for the President.
  • Historically, the power to withhold assent has often been interpreted as a de facto veto.
  • However, the Court clarified this misinterpretation, referencing its earlier decision in State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another (2023).
  • There, it ruled that withholding assent does not mark the end of a Bill’s life.
  • Instead, such a decision obliges the Governor to return the Bill to the legislature for reconsideration, a process that must culminate in assent if the Bill is passed again, regardless of whether amendments suggested by the Governor are incorporated.
  • The Tamil Nadu verdict reaffirms this principle. The Governor, as an unelected constitutional head, cannot override the democratic mandate of the elected legislature.
  • The Court warned that failing to interpret Article 200 in this manner would allow Governors to effectively veto legislation indefinitely, an affront to the core tenets of representative democracy.
• Fixing a Time Frame: The Spirit of Reasonableness
  • Another groundbreaking element of the judgment is the Court’s imposition of a time limit: a Governor or the President must act on a Bill within one to three months.
  • While Article 200 is silent on time constraints, the Court relied on the principle of “reasonable time’ and constitutional expediency to justify its position.
  • This comes in response to the Governor's unexplained delay spanning years, which the Court viewed as a serious threat to India’s federal integrity.
  • Though critics question the legality of judicially prescribing a time limit, the Court argued that where the Constitution is silent, courts can fill the void by applying general legal principles to ensure governance is not paralysed.
  • By doing so, the judgment emphasizes that constitutional offices must act in good faith and within a reasonable timeframe to preserve the vitality of democratic governance.
• Discretion and the Role of the Council of Ministers
  • The judgment also addresses the contentious issue of the Governor’s discretion.
  • It firmly states that the Governor’s actions, whether to withhold assent or to refer a Bill to the President, must be based on the advice of the State’s Council of Ministers.
  • However, this clarity introduces a new complexity: How can a government that commands a majority advise the Governor to propose amendments or return its own legislation?
  • This apparent paradox reveals a flaw in constitutional design, which assumes harmonious functioning between the legislature and the Governor.
  • The judgment exposes the limitations of that assumption.
  • Moreover, differing views from various Benches of the Supreme Court on the extent of gubernatorial discretion continue to add layers of complexity, indicating a need for clearer legislative or constitutional reform.

Judicial Review of Constitutional Heads

• Perhaps the most constitutionally transformative aspect of the ruling is its reaffirmation that the actions of constitutional heads, Governors and the President, are not beyond the scope of judicial review.
• Citing a robust line of precedents, the Court emphasised that no constitutional function is immune from scrutiny.
• This position dismantles the long-held notion that Articles 200 and 201 are areas of executive privilege where judicial intervention is unwarranted.
• In response to criticism that this judgment constitutes judicial overreach, the Court clarified its role: while Parliament may amend the Constitution, the judiciary’s mandate is to interpret and enforce it.
• By amplifying the inherent meaning of Articles 200 and 201, the Court has not rewritten the law but fortified it against exploitation and arbitrariness.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s verdict in this case is not merely a judicial pronouncement, it is a restoration of constitutional order.
• The Court acted to uphold legislative primacy, curtail executive procrastination, and reinforce federal principles.
• In doing so, it set a precedent for handling similar deadlocks in states like Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab, where Governors have also delayed assent to state legislation.
• The judgment serves as both a judicial milestone and a democratic safeguard, preserving the delicate equilibrium between elected governments and constitutional custodians.