In a landmark ruling reinforcing federalism, the Supreme Court has held that State Governors have no veto power under Article 200, declaring such actions unconstitutional.
NEW DELHI: In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional principles and the federal structure, the Supreme Court of India has declared that
“Governors cannot exercise veto power under Article 200 of the Constitution. In its landmark verdict delivered on Tuesday, the Court made it clear that the Governor’s role in the legislative process of a State is not that of a parallel authority to the elected government, but rather of a constitutional facilitator bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers”
The decision comes in response to a writ petition filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu against Governor Dr. RN Ravi, who had been accused of deliberately stalling and later reserving ten Bills for the President’s consideration—after they were duly re-passed by the State Legislature. The Supreme Court decisively quashed this move, calling it
“unconstitutional and non-est in law”.
Key Judicial Findings
The case, titled State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023), was heard by a two-judge bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, who delivered a judgment with far-reaching implications on the powers and responsibilities of a Governor in India’s federal framework.
The Bench held:
“The substantive part of Article 200 uses the phrase ‘shall declare’, indicating a mandatory obligation and leaving no scope for indefinite delay or executive inertia. A Governor must act within a constitutionally reasonable timeframe and cannot remain passive.”
The Court interpreted Article 200 to mean that once a Bill is presented to the Governor, they must choose from one of three specified courses of action:
- Grant assent,
- Withhold assent and return the Bill for reconsideration, or
- Reserve the Bill for consideration by the President.
However, it clarified that the first proviso to Article 200, which allows a Governor to return a Bill for reconsideration, does not allow an absolute or discretionary veto.
“Once a Bill is reconsidered and passed again by the State Legislature, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent.“
Bills Deemed Assented: Use of Article 142
Highlighting the inordinate delay by the Governor in acting on the Bills—some of which had been pending since as early as 2020—the Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to do “complete justice” in the matter. It ordered that:
“The ten Bills that were re-passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and kept pending by the Governor shall be deemed to have received assent on the date they were re-presented after reconsideration.”
This judicial innovation sets a precedent for ensuring legislative continuity and curbing constitutional stalling tactics by non-elected constitutional heads.
Timelines Prescribed for Governor’s Actions
To prevent such future misuse of authority and bring about predictability in the legislative process, the Court laid down time-bound guidelines for the Governor’s conduct under Article 200. These are:
- If action is in line with the advice of the Council of Ministers:
- Assent must be granted, or the Bill reserved for the President, within one month.
- If action is contrary to the advice of the Council:
- If the Governor withholds assent, he must return the Bill with a message within three months.
- If reservation is against the advice of the Council:
- Such reservation must be made within three months.
- If a Bill is re-presented after reconsideration:
- The Governor must grant assent forthwith, subject to a maximum of one month.
Importantly, the Court held that non-compliance with these timelines would make the Governor’s inaction judicially reviewable, and courts can step in to ensure that the constitutional machinery is not rendered ineffective.
Governor’s Role: Constitutional Head, Not a Political Agent
The Court emphatically restated the constitutional position of the Governor as a ceremonial head of the State, bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163. The Bench criticized the growing trend of “motivated inaction” by Governors, which subverts democratic processes:
“The Governor must respect the will of the people as expressed through the Legislature. He is not a parallel executive but a constitutional figurehead, expected to act as a facilitator of governance—not an inhibitor.”
The Court also overruled its previous decision in BK Pavitra, calling it per incuriam (legally erroneous and not binding), which had incorrectly suggested that Governors may have discretion in reserving Bills. The Court observed that
“the removal of the phrase ‘in his discretion’ during the transition from the Government of India Act, 1935 to the Indian Constitution was deliberate, and hence, no such discretion survives”
Background: A Constitutional Stand-Off
The State of Tamil Nadu had approached the Supreme Court after repeated administrative roadblocks allegedly created by Governor Dr. RN Ravi. The petition categorized pending matters before the Governor into four key areas:
- Category 1: 12 legislative Bills pending since 2020.
- Category 2: 4 prosecution sanction requests concerning public servants.
- Category 3: 54 premature release recommendations for prisoners.
- Category 4: Appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), where only 4 of 14 posts were filled, causing serious disruption.
The State argued that the Governor’s inaction was unconstitutional, impeded governance, and went against the basic principles of cooperative federalism and democratic accountability.
Implications of the Verdict
This judgment is a strong reaffirmation of constitutional morality and the primacy of democratically elected governments in a federal setup. By holding that the Governor’s role is bound by ministerial advice—except in narrowly defined situations such as bills affecting the High Court or involving constitutional crises—the Court has significantly curtailed discretionary overreach.
Moreover, the prescription of judicially enforceable timelines for the Governor’s decisions will likely become a benchmark for future federal disputes, especially in politically polarized states.
This verdict is not just a win for Tamil Nadu, but a constitutional wake-up call to Governors across India to uphold their apolitical and ceremonial mandate, and for all stakeholders to act within the boundaries of the Constitutional scheme of governance.
The ruling comes in response to growing concerns over Governors withholding assent or sitting indefinitely on bills without taking any action, thereby stalling the legislative will of elected state governments.
Governor’s Options Under Article 200
The Court reaffirmed the Governor’s three constitutionally recognized options under Article 200 when a bill is presented to him:
- Grant Assent to the Bill
- Withhold Assent to the Bill
- Reserve the Bill for the Consideration of the President
Importantly, the Court clarified that once the Governor decides to withhold assent, the bill must be returned to the legislature with suggestions. If the legislature reconsiders and re-passes the bill, the Governor must then grant assent, except in cases where the bill has been substantially altered.
No Absolute Veto or Indefinite Inaction Allowed
The Supreme Court strongly rejected the notion that Governors can exercise an absolute veto or deploy a ‘pocket veto’ by refusing to act. The language of Article 200, especially the phrase
“as soon as possible”
, imposes a constitutional mandate for timely decision-making.
The Court emphasized that
“the Constitution does not allow the Governor to remain inactive. It stressed that the Governor must exercise one of the three options “with a sense of urgency and expediency.” A deliberate delay or refusal to act amounts to a constitutional dereliction of duty”
No Presidential Reference After Reconsideration
In a significant clarification, the Court ruled that
“the Governor cannot refer a bill to the President under Article 200 after the legislature has re-passed it following the Governor’s initial withholding of assent. The Governor is constitutionally bound to assent in such cases, unless the bill is materially different from its original form.“
This ruling invalidates the Tamil Nadu Governor’s recent act of reserving ten bills for presidential consideration after they had been reconsidered and re-passed by the State Assembly.
The Court declared this action
“unconstitutional and legally unsustainable“
Bills Deemed Assented: Court Invokes Article 142
To correct the constitutional impropriety and ensure justice, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to hold that the ten pending bills were deemed to have received the Governor’s assent on the date they were re-submitted by the legislature.
The Court concluded that the Governor had acted in bad faith by unnecessarily delaying the process and failing to act in accordance with the Constitution.
Timelines Prescribed for Governors
Acknowledging the absence of a specific statutory timeline in Article 200, the Court prescribed the following binding timeframes for the Governor’s actions:
- If the Governor acts in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers to withhold assent or reserve a bill, he must do so forthwith, not exceeding one month.
- If the Governor chooses to withhold assent contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, he must return the bill with a message within three months.
- If the Governor reserves the bill for the President against the advice of the Council, this must also be done within three months.
- If a bill is re-submitted after reconsideration by the legislature, the Governor must grant assent within one month.
Failure to comply with these timelines, the Court ruled, will open the Governor’s actions (or inaction) to judicial review.
Rejection of BK Pavitra Judgment as ‘Per Incuriam’
A critical component of the ruling was the Court’s explicit disagreement with the precedent set in BK Pavitra, which had held that the Governor possesses discretion under Article 200 in reserving bills for the President.
The Court observed that
“such discretion is not constitutionally permissible, pointing out that during the drafting of the Constitution, the phrase “in his discretion” was intentionally omitted from what became Article 200.”
“The majority opinion cited earlier landmark cases such as Shamsher Singh, which categorically stated that the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except where the Constitution expressly provides otherwise.”
Accordingly, the Court ruled that BK Pavitra is a per incuriam judgment – i.e., rendered in ignorance of binding precedent and therefore no longer valid law.
Judicial Review Applies to Article 200
Lastly, the Supreme Court affirmed that
“the Governor’s powers under Article 200 are subject to judicial review. It reiterated that, in a written constitution, the presumption is always in favor of judicial scrutiny unless explicitly barred“
Therefore, any arbitrary, mala fide, or constitutionally non-compliant exercise of discretion by the Governor under Article 200 is justiciable.
Cause Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor Of Tamil Nadu (W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023)
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE