SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 626

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu – Petitioner
VERSUS
The Governor of Tamilnadu & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Yasir, Adv. Mr. P.wilson, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Poornachandiran R, Adv. Mr. Siddarth Seema, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Krishna, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Aravind A, Adv. Mr. Saran Raghunadhan S, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R Venkatramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Ms. Rashi Mangal, Adv. Mr. Kartik Dey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Goel, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Ameya Vikrama Thanvi, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Goradia Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nl Rajah, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Adv. Mr. T. Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Aarthi Rajan, AOR

The Governor's powers under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution are primarily bound by ministerial advice, except in narrowly defined circumstances. Their actions are subject to judicial review, and unreasonable delays constitute grounds for intervention.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 200, 201, 142, 163, 356, 31A, 31C, 213, 254, 288, 304(b), 360 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Representation of People’s Act, 1951 - Governor's powers - Assent to Bills - Withholding assent - Reservation for President's consideration - Judicial review - Time limits.

(B) The Governor's powers under Article 200 are not discretionary except in limited circumstances expressly provided for in the Constitution. The Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except where the Constitution requires otherwise. The Governor cannot exercise a pocket veto. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 34)

(C) The Governor's actions are subject to judicial review, particularly concerning the legality, rationality, and procedural propriety of their exercise. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 34)

(D) The President's powers under Article 201 are also subject to judicial review, particularly concerning arbitrariness, mala fides, and undue delay. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Governor's actions regarding assent to bills, sanction for investigating corruption cases, premature release of prisoners, appointments to the Public Service Commission, and the dismissal/reappointment of ministers. The Governor withheld assent to, and reserved for the President's consideration, several bills passed by the State Legislature. (Paras 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 24)

Findings of Court:
The Court found the Governor's actions regarding the ten bills to be unconstitutional and void. The Court deemed the Governor to have granted assent to the ten bills. (Paras 435, 440)

Issues: The main issues were the scope of the Governor's powers under Article 200, the justiciability of the Governor's and President's actions, the existence of time limits for their actions, and the parameters for judicial review. (Paras 36)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Article 200 to limit the Governor's powers, requiring action on ministerial advice except in narrowly defined circumstances. The Court held that the Governor's actions were subject to judicial review and established time limits for their actions. The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to deem assent granted to the ten bills. (Paras 169-440)

Result: Writ petition allowed. The Governor's actions regarding the ten bills were declared void, and assent was deemed granted.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

1. Whether the first proviso to Article 200 provides an independent course of action or is attached to the option of withholding assent?

The first proviso is not an independent fourth course of action but is intrinsically attached to the option of withholding assent. Once the Governor withholds assent, he must mandatorily follow the first proviso procedure, including returning the bill with a message as soon as possible. The expression shall not withhold assent therefrom confirms this attachment. (Para 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 434 )

2. Whether the Governor can reserve a bill for presidential consideration after it has been repassed by the State Legislature under the first proviso?

No, the Governor cannot reserve a reconsidered bill for presidential consideration once the first proviso procedure has been set in motion, except in extraordinary situations where the bill in the second round is materially different from the first instance. The Governor must assent to a bill presented after compliance with the first proviso. (Para 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 434 )

3. Whether there is a constitutionally prescribed time-limit for the Governor to act under Article 200?

Article 200 contains no express time-limit, but the Court held the Governor must act within a reasonable time. Inaction beyond prescribed judicial time-limits makes the Governor's conduct amenable to judicial review, and the Court may deem assent to have been granted in exceptional cases of undue delay. (Para 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 , 222 , 223 , 224 , 225 , 226 , 227 , 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247 , 248 , 249 , 250 , 251 , 434 )

4. Whether the Governor's exercise of discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review?

Yes, the Governor's exercise of discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review. No constitutional power is beyond the purview of courts. The Governor's actions can be examined for unconstitutionality, arbitrariness, mala fides, and breach of the aid-and-advice requirement, particularly where discretion is exercised contrary to the Council of Ministers' advice. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 320 , 321 , 322 , 323 , 324 , 325 , 326 , 327 , 328 , 329 , 330 , 331 , 332 , 333 , 334 , 335 , 336 , 337 , 338 , 339 , 340 , 341 , 342 , 343 , 344 , 345 , 346 , 347 , 348 , 349 , 350 , 351 , 352 , 353 , 354 , 355 , 356 , 357 , 358 , 359 , 360 , 361 , 362 , 363 , 364 , 365 , 366 , 367 , 368 , 434 )

5. Whether pocket veto or absolute veto exists under Article 200 of the Constitution?

Neither pocket veto nor absolute veto exists under Article 200. The substantive part uses shall declare making the Governor's choice mandatory, and the first proviso's as soon as possible injects expediency. The Governor cannot keep bills pending indefinitely or declare simpliciter withholding of assent without following the first proviso procedure. (Para 31 , 196 , 197 , 208 , 209 , 434 )

JUDGMENT :

(J.B. PARDIWALA, J.)

For the convenience of the exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:

INDEX

A

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

i. Factual background with respect to assent to bills

ii. Factual background with respect to accord of sanction for investigation into cases of corruption against public servants

iii. Factual background with respect to the files pertaining to premature release of prisoners

iv. Factual background with respect to the appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC)

v. Factual background with respect to dismissal of ministers and allocation of ministries

B.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

i. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

ii. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

C.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

D.

ASSENT TO BILLS – HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

i. Concept of assent to bills as envisaged by certain historical documents drafted during the freedom struggle.

ii. Debates of the Constituent Assembly on Article 200 of the Constitution

E.

ARTICLE 200 OF THE CONSTITUTION - DEVELOPMENTS POST THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

i. First Administrative Reforms Commission, 1966

ii. Rajamannar Commission, 1971

iii. Sarkaria Commission

iv. Punchhi Commission

F.

INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE ON ASSENT TO BILLS

G.

ANALYSIS

i. What courses of action are available to the Governor in exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution?

ii. 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?

iii. 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?

iv. Whether the Governor in the exercise of his powers under Article 200 can only act in accordance with the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers?

a. The Office of the Governor

b. Constituent Assembly Debates on the mode of Selection of the Governor

c. Constituent Assembly Debates on the Exercise of Discretion by the Governor

d. The decision of this Court in B.K. Pavitra (supra) is per incuriam

v. Whether the exercise of discretion by the Governor in discharge of his functions under Article 200 could be said to be subject to judicial review? If yes, what are the parameters for such judicial review?

vi. 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?

vii. On Exercise of Article 142

H.

CONCLUSION

1. While the framers of the Constitution set out with a vision that the Governor would be a “constitutional head, a sagacious counselor and adviser to the Ministry”1[8, CONSTITUENT ASSEMB. DEB., (May 30, 1949) 431], someone who can “pour oil over troubled waters”, what has unfolded before us in the instant litigation has been quite the opposite, as this Court has been called upon to calm the troubled waters stirred by the ensuing long-drawn battle of a high constitutional order between the petitioner and the respondent.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu, being aggrieved by the action of the Governor on few issues of prime public importance, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking appropriate reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action, or rather inaction, on part of the Governor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top