LexTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus THE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 985 : 2025 INSC 481 The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023) 08 April 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration a. What courses of action are available to the Governor in exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution. b. Whether the Governor can reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President when it is presented to him for assent after being reconsidered in accordance with the first proviso to Article 200, more particularly, when he had not reserved it for the consideration of the President in the first instance. c. Whether there is an express constitutionally prescribed time limit within which the Governor is required to act in the exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution. d. Whether the Governor in the exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution can only act in accordance with the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers or whether he has discretion in discharge of his functions under the provision. e. Whether the exercise of discretion by the Governor in discharge of his functions under Article 200 of the Constitution could be said to be subject to judicial review? If yes, what are the parameters for such judicial review. f. What is the manner in which the President under Article 201 of the Constitution is required to act once a Bill has been reserved for his consideration by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution. * Author 986 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Headnotes† Constitution of India – Article 200 – The Governor has three enumerated options when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 – Governor can either assent, withhold or reserve the bill for consideration of the President – Pocket veto is not available to the Governor while exercising powers under Article 200 – The Governor cannot keep the bill with him without deciding on the assent: Held: There are only three courses of action available to the Governor to choose from when a bill is presented to him for assent under Article 200 – The first proviso is not an independent fourth course of action but intrinsically attached to the option of withholding of assent – In other words, the first proviso is clarificatory and only elaborates the procedure to be followed in case the option of withholding of assent is invoked by the Governor – The use of the expression “shall” in the substantive part of Article 200 read with the expression “as soon as possible” used in the first proviso indicates that there is no pocket veto available to the Governor while he is exercising the powers under Article 200 – Inaction on part of the Governor to take a decision when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 is grossly violative of the constitutional scheme of expediency which permeates the provision – The Governor, in exercise of his powers under Article 200, also does not possess any absolute veto – He is mandated to take a decision from among the three options that are provided in the substantive part of the Article 200 – In case of withholding of assent, the Governor is bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the first proviso and assent to the bill if it is ultimately presented to him for assent after being repassed by the State legislature – The Governor may also reserve certain bills for the consideration of the President – However, in no case has the Governor been conferred with the power to veto a bill which is presented to him – He is envisaged as an intermediary stop in the journey of the bill towards becoming an Act – When a bill comes to the Governor, he may forthwith assent to it, or postpone the grant of assent by exercising the option of withholding of assent but only for so long till the bill comes back to him after reconsideration, or he may forward the bill to the President whereupon the procedure prescribed under Article 201 is to be followed – Thus, in none of these cases can the Governor permanently keep a bill with him without according assent to it, nor can he declare a simpliciter withholding of assent thereby killing the bill. [Paras 194-198] [2025] 4 S.C.R. 987 The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Constitution of India – Article 200 – The Governor cannot reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President when it is presented to him
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.