The Supreme Court’s ruling in Tamil Nadu’s case against its Governor sets strict limits on gubernatorial discretion. Legal experts warn this could mark a turning point toward judicial overreach in India’s federal system.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling that is already sending ripples through India’s federal structure, the Supreme Court has delivered its verdict in the high-stakes constitutional battle between the State of Tamil Nadu and its Governor, raising serious questions on the boundaries of judicial intervention in executive discretion.
The apex court’s detailed 400+ page ruling, delivered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, unpacks multiple facets of the constitutional relationship between an elected state government and the Governor.
From withholding assent to bills, delays in sanction for prosecution, to ministerial appointments and premature release of prisoners.
But beyond the procedural scrutiny, the judgment wades into contentious terrain — potentially tilting the scales in favor of judicial supremacy over executive discretion, inviting a broader debate on judicial overreach.
Background: A Constitutional Crisis Unfolds
The case stemmed from the Tamil Nadu government’s grievance over what it termed the Governor’s “inaction and obstructionism” on several key fronts:
- Withholding or delaying assent on 12 bills, some for over three years;
- Stalling sanctions for prosecution of former ministers involved in corruption;
- Non-approval of TNPSC appointments; and
- Refusal to swear in Dr. K. Ponmudy despite a court order suspending his conviction.
According to the state, the Governor’s approach had rendered the constitutional machinery dysfunctional — a view the Court appeared to sympathize with.
“What has unfolded before us… has been quite the opposite [of the constitutional vision], as this Court has been called upon to calm the troubled waters stirred by the ensuing long-drawn battle of a high constitutional order…”
— Justice Pardiwala
Judicial Directions or Executive Override?
While the Court did not directly strike down the Governor’s discretionary powers, its strong observations, time-limits, and interpretative stance have raised concerns of judicial intrusion into executive domains.
The ruling mandates:
- A time limit (suggested 2–3 months) for Governors to act on Bills;
- Assent cannot be withheld without reasons or by way of “pocket veto”;
- Once a Bill is reconsidered and re-passed by the Legislature, the Governor must grant assent, not reserve it for the President.
“The scheme of Article 200 negates the possibility of engaging in inordinate delay or pocket veto.”
— Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi
“The Governor cannot be accepted as an all-pervading super-constitutional authority.”
— Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi
The Judicial Rewriting of Article 200?
Article 200 of the Constitution lays out the Governor’s powers in dealing with Bills passed by the State Legislature. Traditionally, the Governor may:
- Assent to the Bill;
- Withhold assent;
- Reserve it for the President’s consideration.
However, the Court now interprets that after a Bill is repassed by the State Legislature, the Governor has no discretion left — he “shall not withhold assent therefrom“.
“The phraseology of the first proviso is couched in negative language and thus prohibits the Governor from taking any other recourse than granting assent.”
— Rakesh Dwivedi
This has led critics to claim that the judiciary is effectively amending the Constitution under the guise of interpretation.
Political Implications: Federalism at Risk?
The implications are not just legal but political. The verdict comes amid increasing friction between opposition-led states and centrally-appointed Governors, sparking accusations of partisanship and eroding federalism.
“Gubernatorial procrastination is a new phenomenon and requires judicial intervention for finding a new solution… within the Constitutional framework.”
— Dr. Singhvi
Yet, others argue that judicial mandates forcing executive action set a dangerous precedent.
“Courts must not run governments,”
-a constitutional expert commented anonymously, warning that judicial overreach may create new tensions between the executive and judiciary.
The Governor’s Defence — Discretion or Delay?
In letters and affidavits, the Governor’s office claimed it acted on legitimate grounds:
- Bills suffered from “repugnancy” with Central laws under Entry 66 of the Union List;
- Sanctions were delayed due to incomplete documentation;
- Appointments lacked transparency.
But the Court was unconvinced, observing that lack of reasons, absence of consultation, and arbitrary delays violated constitutional norms.
Where the President Stands
Out of the 10 re-passed Bills sent to the President, assent was withheld in seven, granted in one, and two remain undecided.
This has prompted the petitioner to allege that even the President’s withholding of assent was a mala fide act, orchestrated to sidestep the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
A New Chapter or a New Conflict?
The Court’s intervention, while seeking to preserve constitutional accountability, opens the door to potential future conflicts. What happens when Governor and President exercise discretion contrary to judicial prescriptions? And should the judiciary dictate timelines and override executive interpretations?
For now, the ruling sets binding precedent. But the long-term impact on the separation of powers and executive independence is yet to unfold.
State Can Move SC if President Withholds Assent: Top Court
Top Court said that if the President of India withholds assent (approval) on a bill which has been passed by a state assembly and sent by the state Governor for the President’s consideration, then the state government has the right to directly approach the Supreme Court.
This major judgment came from a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on April 8, in response to a plea by the Tamil Nadu government. The DMK-led Tamil Nadu government had complained about long delays in getting assent for several bills passed by the state assembly.
These bills were sent to Governor R N Ravi, who had then reserved them for the President’s consideration, instead of giving his assent or returning them.
The Supreme Court gave a big relief to the Tamil Nadu government by clearing ten bills that had been stuck. The court also clearly said that Governors must act on bills passed by the state assembly within a reasonable time and cannot delay them unnecessarily.
In the detailed judgment written by Justice Pardiwala, which runs into 415 pages, the court discussed the powers of the Governor under Article 200 and of the President under Article 201 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 200 explains what a Governor can do when a bill is passed by a state assembly – either give assent, withhold assent, or send it to the President. Article 201 explains what happens when the Governor reserves a bill for the President’s consideration.
The court said that the actions of both the Governor and the President related to state bills can be reviewed by the courts under certain situations.
“Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before this Court,”
-the court said.
The Supreme Court stressed that these important constitutional powers given to the Governor and President must be used properly and not in an unfair or irresponsible way.
“Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President in his own discretion and contrary to the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before the appropriate High Court or this Court,”
-the judgment further said.
The court explained under what conditions a state can challenge such reservations in courts.
“Where the reservation of a bill by the Governor for the consideration of the President is on the grounds of peril to democracy or democratic principles or on other exceptional grounds as mentioned in M.P. Special Police (supra) and Nabam Rebia (supra) then the Governor would be expected to make a specific and clear reference to the President properly indicating the reasons for entertaining such a belief by pinpointing the specific provisions in this regard and the consequent effect that may ensue if such a bill were to be allowed to become a law,”
-the bench said.
The court also said that while sending the bill to the President, the Governor must give a proper explanation and reasoning.
“It shall be open to the state Government to challenge such a reservation on the ground of failure on part of the Governor to furnish the necessary reasons as discussed aforesaid or that the reasons indicated are wholly irrelevant, mala-fide, arbitrary, unnecessary or motivated by extraneous considerations. This being a question completely capable of being determined by the constitutional courts, would be fully justiciable,”
-the judgement said.
The court strongly said that keeping a bill pending or reserving it just because the Governor personally disagrees or due to political reasons is not allowed.
“Reserving a bill on grounds such as ‘personal dissatisfaction of the Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations’ is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set-aside forthwith on that ground alone,”
-Justice Pardiwala said.
The court also clarified that even if the Governor sends a bill to the President to get special immunity or approval, and then the President withholds assent, the matter can still be checked by the court if it looks like the power was used unfairly.
“Where a State bill has been reserved by the governor for the consideration of the President on the ground that assent of the President is required for the purpose of making the bill enforceable or securing some immunity therefor, then in such cases the withholding of assent by the President would be justiciable to the limited extent of exercise of such power in an arbitrary or mala fide manner. Owing to the political nature of the assent of the President in these categories of bills, the courts would impose a self-restraint,”
-it said.
Further, if the bill looks completely unconstitutional and the President withholds assent for that reason, then the courts can freely look into that matter as a legal question.
“In such cases, it would be prudent for the President to obtain the advisory opinion of this court by way of a reference under Article 143 and act in accordance with the same to dispel any apprehensions of bias, arbitrariness or mala fides,”
-it said.
The Court clearly said that Governors must not use their position to stop or delay the work of elected State Governments just for political reasons.
Doing so, the Court said, is against the will of the people who have chosen their leaders through elections.
The Court looked into how the Governor handled – or failed to handle – a bill passed by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature.
The judges clearly stated that the Governor should work with respect towards the traditions of India’s democracy. He should understand that the State Government is chosen by the people, and the Legislature represents their voice.
“The Governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the state legislature in order to thwart and break the will of the people for political [reasons]. The members of the state legislature, having been elected by the people of the state as an outcome of the democratic expression, are better attuned to ensure the well being of the People of the State,”
–the Court commented.
The Supreme Court added that the Governor should act like a guide, philosopher, and friend to the government, and should not behave like a political agent. He should do his duty with honesty and seriousness, based on the oath he takes under the Constitution.
“In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the State machinery by his sagacity, wisdom, and not run it into a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor. All his actions must be impelled, keeping in mind the dignity of the high constitutional office,”
–it said.
Talking about the Governor’s oath, the Court explained that any act by the Governor which goes against the people’s decision is a violation of the constitutional promise he made.
“Any action contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the state legislature, would be a renege of his constitutional oath.”
The bench also reminded that those who hold high constitutional posts, like Governors, must follow the values and ethics of the Indian Constitution. They must make decisions with fairness, not with political bias.
“These values that are so cherished by the people of India are a result of years of struggle and sacrifice of our forefathers. When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give in to political considerations, but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution….They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by that constitutional oath, and if the course of action adopted by them furthers the ideas enshrined in the Constitution. If the authorities attempt to deliberately bypass the Constitution, they are tinkering with the very ideals revered by its people upon which this country has stood,”
–the Court further said.
At the end of the verdict, the Supreme Court shared a powerful quote from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was the chief architect of our Constitution. The Court said this message is still very important today, maybe even more than it was back in 1949.
“However good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad a constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it happen to be a good lot.”
CASE TITLE:
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU vs THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU AND ANR.
W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
