The Supreme Court’s recent verdict on the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in assenting to Bills revives the call to implement the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations in true letter and spirit.
NEW DELHI: The recent Supreme Court judgment concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in assenting to Bills passed by the State Legislature has once again spotlighted the delicate balance of power between the Centre and the States.
In its firm observations, the apex court emphasized constitutional accountability and the importance of upholding the federal structure enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
This ruling echoes the long-standing recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission, which had meticulously laid out a framework to guide Centre-State relations. As debates reignite over gubernatorial overreach and legislative paralysis, the pressing question emerges—are we finally witnessing a move toward implementing the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations in letter and spirit?
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Justice J.B. Pardiwala’s poignant opening remarks in court aptly captured the essence of the legal dispute:
“While the framers of the Constitution set out with the vision: the Governor would be the constitutional head, a sagacious counsellor and advisor to the ministry. Someone who can pour oil over troubled waters. What has unfolded before us in the instant litigation has been quite the opposite. 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.”
Delivering its verdict, the bench—comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan—unanimously ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged inaction on several legislative and executive proposals was erroneous and illegal. The judgment was reserved earlier in February 2025, following a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government in 2023 challenging the Governor’s indefinite delay in acting on various matters.
The state government, in its petition, submitted that the Governor had left four categories of matters pending without any communication:
- Twelve State Bills (2020–2023): These Bills, passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, primarily sought to amend laws governing state universities. The amendments included proposals such as empowering the state government to appoint Vice Chancellors (eight Bills), adding a government nominee to the Vice Chancellor selection panel (one Bill),
- transferring inspection and inquiry powers to the government (two Bills), including the Finance Secretary in university Syndicates (three Bills), establishing a state-run Ayurveda university (one Bill), and providing the state full control over appointments to all universities except the University of Madras (one Bill).
- Under Article 200 of the Constitution, once a Bill is passed by the legislature, the Governor has three options: assent to it, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President’s consideration. However, the Article also requires that if the Governor sends the Bill back and it is re-enacted by the Assembly, “he shall not withhold assent.”
- Sanction for Prosecution: Files seeking permission to prosecute public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, submitted between April 10, 2022, and May 15, 2023, also remained pending.
- Premature Release of Prisoners: The Governor failed to act on 54 files related to early release of convicts submitted between June 28 and August 24, 2023.
- Appointments to TNPSC: Proposals for appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, which fall under the Governor’s purview as per Article 316 of the Constitution, had also not been acted upon.
Taking cognizance of the issue, the Supreme Court on November 10, 2023, termed the delays a
“matter of serious concern”
and issued notice to the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Bench also called upon the Attorney General or Solicitor General to assist in the matter, which was listed for hearing on November 20.
By the November 20 hearing, it emerged that the Governor had withheld assent from 10 of the Bills—actions taken only after the Court’s intervention. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud remarked on the timing, noting that
“these Bills had been pending since January 2020 and queried why action was taken only after the Court’s November 10 order“
In response, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin introduced the Bills afresh in the Assembly, which were re-adopted. He emphasized that
under Article 200, once a Bill is passed again by the legislature, the Governor “shall not withhold assent.”
The Attorney General argued that
“since these Bills touched upon the Governor’s powers—especially regarding the appointment of Vice Chancellors—further consideration was necessary. When the Court pointed out that the delay spanned several years, the AG responded that R.N. Ravi had only been appointed in 2021“
. To this, the Court asserted that the core issue was ‘
“not whether any particular Governor delayed but whether in general there has been a delay in exercising constitutional functions.”
The CJI posed a crucial constitutional query:
whether the Governor could merely “withhold assent” without returning the Bill or if such indefinite withholding amounted to a “pocket veto.”
The petitioners argued that allowing the Governor to do so would
“paralyse governance.”
They also maintained that the Governor could not reserve the Bill for the President after it had been re-passed by the Assembly.
The Court recorded that
“out of 181 Bills submitted to Governor Ravi, 152 were assented to, five were withdrawn by the state, nine were reserved for the President’s assent, assent was withheld from nine, and five Bills submitted in October 2023 remained under consideration“
Ultimately, on April 8, 2025, invoking its discretionary powers under Article 142, the Bench declared
“the Governor’s delays “erroneous” and held that the pending Bills would be deemed to have received assent.“
What Is Articles 201, 254(2), and 304(b) of the Constitution of India
Article 201 – Bills reserved for consideration
“When a Bill has been reserved for the consideration of the President, the President shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom:
Provided that, where the Bill is not a Money Bill, the President may direct the Governor to return the Bill to the House or, as the case may be, the Houses of the Legislature of the State together with a message requesting that they will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message, and
when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the President for assent, the President shall not be obliged to give his assent to the Bill.”
Article 254(2) – Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States
“Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.”
Article 304(b) – Restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse among States
“Notwithstanding anything in this Part, the Legislature of a State may by law—
(b) impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that State as may be required in the public interest:
Provided that no Bill or amendment for the purposes of clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President.”
Time Limit for Governor/President’s Decision on Bills
In Paragraphs 385 and 387 of its judgment, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the significance of time-bound decision-making by constitutional authorities such as the President and Governors when dealing with Bills passed by state legislatures.
The Court cited Office Memorandums issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 2016, which prescribe a three-month timeframe for taking action on such legislative matters.
These Office Memorandums, directed at the Union Ministries and Governors, stemmed from the increasing delays observed in the constitutional process of assenting or withholding assent to Bills passed by State Legislatures and forwarded to the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution. In response to these delays, the MHA issued clear instructions stating that:
The memorandum in question outlines the procedural framework that comes into play once a Governor refers a Bill to the President under Article 201 of the Constitution. It clearly states that
“the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, as the nodal Ministry, would refer the substantive issues involved in the bill to the appropriate Ministry at the Centre which is concerned with the subject matter.”
Further, any issues relating to the language, drafting, or constitutional validity of the Bill are to be referred specifically to the Law Ministry. This delegation of responsibility is designed to streamline the decision-making process and prevent delays.
The memorandum highlights that
“the making of unreasonable queries or observations only serves to delay the entire process of consideration of a bill by the President under Article 201.”
To address this, a structured timeline has been implemented. The Ministry responsible for the substantive issues is required to respond within 15 days of receiving the Bill. In case of any deviation from this time frame, reasons for the delay must be explicitly stated. If a response is not received within a maximum of one month,
“it is construed strictly and understood to mean that the concerned Ministry may have no comments whatsoever to offer on the proposal.”
Additionally,
“a timeline of three months has been prescribed for the decision on bills reserved for the President,” ensuring that such matters are not kept pending indefinitely. For ordinances that are of an urgent nature, “a time limit of three weeks has been prescribed for the disposal.”
Another Office Memorandum, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to all States and Union Territories on the same day, reinforces these procedural expectations and timelines. It reiterates that the Ministry of Home Affairs is
“the nodal Ministry for processing and conveying a final decision with respect to State Legislations under Article 201 read with Article 254(2) of the Constitution; State Legislations requiring previous sanction of the President under Article 304(b) of the Constitution and Ordinances for the instructions of the President under Article 213(1) etc.”
Upon receiving a reference from the Governor, the Ministry
“examines and seeks the views of the concerned Central Departments/Ministries.”
Once these views are collected, the Ministry of Home Affairs undertakes a second review. If there are any objections from the Central Ministries,
“the same are shared with the State Government concerned seeking their views/clarifications so that the Central Departments/Ministries concerned can be apprised of the clarifications of the State Government.”
This back-and-forth is considered an integral part of the current procedure for processing state legislations.
However, the memorandum points out a recurring challenge:
“State Governments do not send requisite clarifications/views on the comments made by the Central Departments/Ministries and thus, a decision in the matter gets unduly delayed.”
Recognising the need to resolve this issue, the matter was reviewed recently, and strict timelines were set.
A maximum of three months has now been fixed for the disposal of state bills, requests for prior instructions, and ordinances
“from the date of their receipt from the State Government.”
The process is divided into phases:
“a maximum period of one month has been kept for Inter-Ministerial consultation and next one month has been kept for obtaining the comments/clarifications of the State Government on the views as conveyed by the Central Departments/Ministries.”
In conclusion, the memorandum underscores that
“since a time bound disposal of State Legislations etc. is in the interest of the State Governments, it is requested that appropriate instructions may be issued to all concerned to adhere to the timeline of one month for responding to the comments/views of the Central Departments/ Ministries as conveyed by the MHA.”
Crucially, it states that if the State Government fails to respond within this one-month period,
“it will be construed that the State Government agrees with the observation and has no comments to offer.”
By quoting these memorandums, the Supreme Court reinforced the idea that even if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly provide a fixed timeline, the spirit of cooperative federalism and good governance demands that constitutional authorities act within a reasonable and predictable time frame.
The Court further noted that the Executive’s inaction or indefinite delay in deciding the fate of a Bill — particularly by Governors — can effectively stall democratically enacted legislation, which goes against both constitutional morality and public interest.
In essence, these Office Memorandums are not just administrative guidelines but serve as an important reminder of the constitutional obligation to act expeditiously, transparently, and responsibly.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE