Governor Cannot Reserve Repassed Bills For President; Assent To Ten Bills Deemed Granted

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan heard a constitutional writ by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging multiple acts and omissions by the Governor of Tamil Nadu, principally the withholding of assent to and subsequent reservation for Presidential consideration of a series of State Bills. The petition raised core questions under Article 200 (assent to Bills) and Article 201 (bills reserved for consideration of the President), and sought declarations, quashing of the Governor’s actions and directions for grant of assent and disposal of other pending files.

The Court held that the Governor could not treat the option of withholding assent as an absolute or pocket veto and that the first proviso to Article 200 attached to any withholding of assent; once a Bill was repassed after reconsideration in accordance with that proviso the Governor could not thereafter reserve it for the President. The Court emphasised expedition in the exercise of Article 200 powers and prescribed judicially-manageable time-limits for gubernatorial action. The judgment declared the Governor’s reservation of ten Tamil Nadu Bills for Presidential consideration void and — by exercising its powers under Article 142 in the exceptional circumstances of prolonged delay and lack of bona fides — deemed assent to those ten Bills to have been granted on 18.11.2023.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The substantive part of Article 200 empowers the Governor to withhold assent to the Bill. In such an event, the Governor must mandatorily follow the course of action which is indicated in the first proviso of communicating to the State Legislature ‘as soon as possible’ a message warranting the reconsideration of the Bill. The expression ‘as soon as possible’ is significant. It conveys a constitutional imperative of expedition. Failure to take a call and keeping a Bill duly passed for indeterminate periods is a course of action inconsistent with that expression. Constitutional language is not surplusage.”

Background

The State Legislature of Tamil Nadu passed 12 Bills between January 2020 and April 2023 and presented them to the Governor for assent. After months of inaction, the Governor on 13.11.2023 recorded “I withhold assent” to ten Bills but did not send the explanatory message required by the first proviso to Article 200. The Assembly reconvened on 18.11.2023 and repassed those ten Bills without substantive change and again presented them to the Governor. On 28.11.2023 the Governor — without aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and although he had earlier recorded the Bills as intra vires State competence — reserved those repassed Bills for the consideration of the President on grounds of alleged repugnancy with entry 66, Union List. The State challenged the Governor’s reservations as ultra vires, arbitrary and mala fide.

The Supreme Court analysed constitutional text, Constituent Assembly debates, historical statutes, and successive commissions’ reports (Sarkaria, Punchhi) and precedents including Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary, Hoechst, State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2024) and others. The Court held that “The Governor cannot be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indefinitely without any action whatsoever,” and set out that: (i) the first proviso is not an independent fourth option but is attached to withholding of assent; (ii) the Governor lacked power to reserve repassed Bills presented after compliance with the first proviso; (iii) where the Governor had reserved the ten Bills, such reservation was illegal and was set aside; and (iv) having regard to prolonged delay and circumstances of mala fides, the Court — exercising its powers under Article 142 — deemed assent to the ten Bills to have been granted on 18.11.2023, with related orders to notify and circulate the judgment.

The Court also addressed other grievances in the petition concerning delay in Governor’s action on sanction for prosecution of public servants, pending remission files and appointments to the TNPSC, emphasising that gubernatorial inaction in such matters was justiciable and must be resolved expeditiously. The Registry was directed to circulate the judgment to all High Courts and to Governors’ principal secretaries.

Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1239 OF 2023 (2025 INSC 481) Case Title: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU …PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Counsel; Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Counsel; Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Venkatramani, Attorney General for India; Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General (as appeared); other Central government counsel as noted in the record

Disposition: Writ petition allowed in part. Reservation of the ten challenged Bills by the Governor for Presidential consideration was declared void; consequential Presidential actions set aside; the ten Bills were deemed to have been assented to on 18.11.2023. Time-limits and principles for gubernatorial and Presidential action under Articles 200 and 201 were prescribed; other pending applications disposed as recorded.