In a significant verdict reinforcing the sanctity of legislative procedure under the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Governor of Tamil Nadu acted illegally by reserving ten Bills for Presidential consideration after they had already been reconsidered and passed by the State Legislature.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government. The court held that the Governor’s action of reserving the Bills in November 2023—after returning them once for reconsideration—was in violation of Article 200 of the Constitution and hence, invalid in law.

Governor Cannot Delay or Stall Law-Making

The court emphasized that Article 200 envisions a time-bound and constitutionally accountable flow of legislation, stating that once a Bill is re-presented after reconsideration, the Governor must act "forthwith" and cannot reserve it again for the President. The use of the phrase "as soon as possible" in the first proviso to Article 200 reflects an expectation of urgency and accountability.

“Despite there being no prescribed time-limit, Article 200 cannot be interpreted to give the Governor a tool to indefinitely delay or block the legislative process,” the bench observed.

Timelines Prescribed

To prevent abuse of constitutional procedure, the court laid down specific timelines:

• Withholding assent or reservation (in line with Council of Ministers’ advice): Action must be taken within one month.

• Returning the Bill (against Council's advice): Must be done within three months.

• Reservation for Presidential assent against advice: Within three months.

• When a Bill is re-presented post-reconsideration: Governor must grant assent within one month.

Presidential Role Also Bound by Time and Reason

The bench clarified that the President, under Article 201, must make a decision—either to grant or withhold assent—within a maximum of three months. Any delay beyond that must be justified with reasons.

Rejecting the notion of a "pocket veto," the court declared that the expression “shall declare” in Article 201 mandates timely action. Further, any decision to withhold assent must be accompanied by reasoned justification.

Discretion of Governor Not Absolute

The court categorically ruled that the Governor has no discretionary powers under Article 200 except in certain specific cases:

1. Bills requiring mandatory Presidential assent (e.g., under Articles 31A, 31C, 254(2), etc.);

2. Where the Bill undermines core constitutional principles;

3. Bills that fall under the second proviso to Article 200.

It also held the earlier observations in B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India (2019)—that the Governor has discretion in reserving Bills and that such discretion is beyond judicial review—to be per incuriam (i.e., legally incorrect).

Assent Deemed Granted

The bench, invoking its powers under Article 142, declared that the ten Bills in question are deemed to have received assent on November 18, 2023—the date they were re-submitted to the Governor after reconsideration.

Governor Must Act Within Constitutional Bounds

Strongly cautioning against political misuse of constitutional authority, the court said:

“The Governor must act as a friend, philosopher, and guide—not an inhibitor to the functioning of the State. Political expediency or personal dissatisfaction cannot justify the reservation of a Bill.”

It reminded all constitutional authorities, including the Governor and President, that their decisions must be guided by constitutional values, not partisan interests:

“To bypass the constitutional mandate is to tinker with the very ideals upon which this nation was built.”

Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr