Supreme Court Redefines Gubernatorial Powers in Landmark Tamil Nadu Case

In a significant constitutional pronouncement that fundamentally recalibrates the relationship between state legislatures and Governors, the Supreme Court has ruled against the Tamil Nadu Governor’s withholding of legislative bills, establishing clear timelines for gubernatorial action and expanding judicial review over such matters.

Constitutional Boundaries Clarified 

On April 8, 2025, a Division Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered a unanimous verdict declaring that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s withholding of ten state legislative bills was “illegal” and “erroneous.” The 415-page judgment provided an exhaustive interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which delineate the powers of Governors and the President regarding state legislation.

“The Constitution provides for a delicate balance of power between constitutional functionaries,” observed Justice Pardiwala, elaborating that upon receiving bills passed by a state legislature, a Governor must select only one of the three constitutionally prescribed options: (i) grant assent, (ii) withhold assent (which necessitates returning the bill to the legislature with recommendations), or (iii) reserve the bill for Presidential consideration.

The Court emphatically rejected Attorney General R. Venkataramani’s contention that Governors possess an “absolute veto” power, characterising this argument as “short-sighted” and “half-baked.” The judgment reaffirmed the principles established in State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023), wherein the Court had previously determined that withholding assent is only valid when accompanied by returning the bill to the legislature.

“The Governor does not have the discretion to withhold and sit on the bill without returning it,” the judgment stated unequivocally, effectively eliminating the possibility of what some constitutional scholars term a “pocket veto.”

Prescribed Timelines for Constitutional Action

Addressing a significant lacuna in constitutional practice, the Court established specific timelines within which Governors must discharge their duties under Article 200:

For ordinary bills: 30 days to grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve for Presidential consideration For Money Bills: 14 days For bills returned by the legislature after reconsideration: 30 days to grant assent. Similarly, the Court directed that the President must decide on reserved bills within three months, drawing upon procedural guidelines previously issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2016.

Justice Mahadevan emphasised that these timelines “do not function as a hanging sword” over constitutional functionaries, but rather serve as “guiding prescriptions” to prevent legislative paralysis. Any deviation from these timeframes must be justified and remains subject to judicial scrutiny.

Expansion of Judicial Review

In a determination that significantly enhances accountability in the constitutional scheme, the Bench clarified that neither the Governor nor the President enjoys immunity from judicial review under Articles 200 and 201. Departing from previous jurisprudence in B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India (2019), which had suggested that certain gubernatorial actions were beyond judicial scrutiny, the Court warned that the absence of judicial review would effectively shield the Governor’s actions “in a lead casket.”

The judgment established that state governments may approach courts to seek a writ of mandamus if constitutional functionaries fail to act within the prescribed time limits. “The absence of a remedy against constitutional non-compliance poses a serious threat to the federal polity of the country,” the Court observed.

Invoking Extraordinary Powers for “Complete Justice” 

Finding that Governor Ravi’s conduct lacked bona fides—first withholding assent without the constitutionally mandated message, then improperly reserving the bills for Presidential consideration after legislative reconsideration—the Court took the extraordinary step of invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

“It is difficult for us to repose our trust and remand the matter to the Governor with a direction to dispose of the bills,” the judgment stated, declaring that the ten pending bills were deemed to have received assent on the date they were sent to the Governor in the second round. The Court emphasised that this exercise of Article 142 was undertaken only after the “deepest of deliberations” and declared that any contradictory Presidential actions on these bills were void ab initio.

Implications for Federal Relations 

Constitutional experts view this judgment as a watershed moment in India’s federal jurisprudence. Former Supreme Court Judge K.T. Thomas noted that the ruling “establishes crucial safeguards against the misuse of gubernatorial powers that could potentially undermine democratically elected state governments.”

The verdict has immediate implications for Tamil Nadu, where the ten bills—covering subjects ranging from education to taxation—can now be implemented. However, its ramifications extend far beyond state boundaries, potentially influencing Governor-state government relations nationwide.

Constitutional scholar Dr. Arghya Sengupta observed that the judgment “recalibrates the constitutional balance by ensuring that appointed functionaries cannot indefinitely obstruct the legislative will of elected representatives.”

The ruling comes amid growing tensions between opposition-ruled states and their Governors, who are appointed by the Union Government. Several state governments had raised concerns about gubernatorial delays in assenting to legislation, appointing Vice-Chancellors, and performing other constitutional functions.

By establishing clear procedures, timelines, and accountability mechanisms, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that while Governors play a vital role in India's constitutional framework. Their powers must be exercised within defined parameters that respect democratic mandates and federal principles.

The judgment concludes with a reminder that constitutional functionaries must act in consonance with constitutional morality: “Democratic values and federal cooperation are not merely aspirational ideals but constitutional imperatives that must guide every action taken under the Constitution.”