Supreme Court Rules Governor's Reservation of Tamil Nadu Bills for President’s Assent Illegal, Declares Bills Deemed Assented

Landmark judgment clarifies Governor’s limited discretion under Article 200 of the Constitution, prescribes timelines for assent, and empowers judicial review over gubernatorial actions.

In a significant judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023 between the State of Tamil Nadu and the Governor of Tamil Nadu, elucidated the constitutional scheme governing the assent to bills under Article 200 of the Constitution. The Court held that the Governor’s reservation of ten Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislature for the consideration of the President, after they were re-passed without any amendments as per the first proviso to Article 200, was illegal and ultra vires the Constitution. Further, the Court declared that any consequent withholding of assent by the President on these Bills was also void ab initio.

The dispute arose when between 2020 and 2023, Tamil Nadu’s legislature passed twelve Bills which were forwarded to the Governor for assent. The Governor withheld assent to ten Bills without returning them for reconsideration as mandated by the first proviso to Article 200, and later reserved these Bills for the President’s consideration. The State Legislature re-passed these Bills in a special session without amendments and resubmitted them to the Governor, who again reserved them for the President. The President withheld assent on seven Bills, granted assent to one, and was yet to decide on two others.

The State Government challenged the Governor’s actions before the Supreme Court, contending that simpliciter withholding of assent without a message requesting reconsideration violates Article 200 and the Governor cannot reserve Bills for the President after re-passage under the first proviso. The Court agreed with the State, emphasizing that Article 200 provides only three mutually exclusive options to the Governor when a Bill is presented: assent, withhold assent, or reserve for the President’s consideration. The first proviso is integrally linked to withholding assent and mandates that in such cases, the Governor must return the Bill with a message requesting reconsideration. If the Bill is re-passed with or without amendments, the Governor cannot withhold assent thereafter.

The Court held that the Governor’s reservation of Bills for the President after re-passage without any message was constitutionally impermissible and tantamount to an absolute or pocket veto, which the Constitution does not envisage. It further clarified that the Governor ordinarily acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and discretion to reserve Bills is limited to exceptional circumstances expressly provided in the Constitution, such as Bills derogating from High Court powers under the second proviso to Article 200, or where assent of the President is mandatory under specific provisions. Even in such exceptional cases, the exercise of discretion is subject to judicial review.

Addressing the issue of delay, the Court pronounced that the Governor must exercise his powers under Article 200 within a reasonable time, reading in a judicially manageable time-limit. It prescribed timelines: one month for assent or reservation upon aid and advice of Ministers, three months if withholding or reservation is contrary to Ministerial advice, and one month for assent after re-passage under the first proviso. Failure to comply can attract judicial scrutiny. The Court similarly prescribed a three-month timeline for the President to decide on Bills reserved under Article 201, emphasizing that prolonged inaction would be unconstitutional.

Importantly, the Court held that the power of judicial review extends to the Governor’s exercise of discretion under Article 200 and the President’s withholding of assent under Article 201, rejecting earlier precedents that had held assent as non-justiciable. It elaborated that while assent is usually a formality exercised on Ministerial advice, withholding assent or reservation must be accompanied by cogent reasons and is subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent arbitrariness, mala fide exercise, or political bias.

Exercising its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that the ten challenged Bills be deemed assented to on the date they were presented to the Governor after re-passage, effectively bringing closure to a protracted constitutional impasse. The Court urged the Governor and State Government to work harmoniously, respecting the supremacy of the people’s elected representatives and the sanctity of the Constitution.

This landmark ruling clarifies the limited role of the Governor in legislative assent, reinforces the principles of parliamentary democracy and federalism, and empowers courts to ensure constitutional accountability over constitutional functionaries.

Statutory provisions Article 200, Article 201, Article 163, Article 142, Article 143, Article 31A, Article 31C, Article 254, Article 288, Article 360, Article 356, Article 111, Article 216 (Rules referred), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as context)

State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamilnadu, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2718269