Note on The State of Tamil Nadu – Vs – The Governor of Tamil Nadu
1. Judgement dated 08/04/2025 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023 by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
2. Brief of the operative portions of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Paras 204, 367, 368 & 432, 434 & 435
Para 435:
• The reservation of the 10 Bills to the Hon’ble President is declared to
be erroneous in law, non-est and thus, is hereby set aside.
• The consequential steps taken by the Hon’ble President on such
reservation on the 10 Bills is equally non-est and is hereby set aside.
• Under Article 142 of the Constitution, power is exercised by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court for the purpose of declaring these ten Bills as
deemed to have been assented on the date when they were
presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the State
legislature i.e., on 18.11.2023.
Para 434:
• The Governor has three options under Article 200 of the Constitution
when the Bill passed by the State legislature is presented to him; i. First,
to assent; ii. Secondly, to withhold assent; or iii. Thirdly, to
reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
• The Governor on exercising the second option of withholding
assent, he is under an obligation to follow the procedure
prescribed in the first proviso “as soon as possible”.
• The Governor on withholding the assent has to return the bill with
suggestions to the House to reconsider in accordance with the
suggestions made by the Governor in his message and present
it to him after repassing.
• The Bill would lapse if the House fails to reconsider within the time.
• The Governor has no power of “pocket veto” or “absolute veto” under
Article 200 of the Constitution. There is no scope for the Governor to- 2 -
declare a simpliciter withholding of assent, meaning thereby
that ‘absolute veto’ is also impermissible under Article 200.
• The Governor cannot reserve a bill for the consideration of the
President once it is presented to him in the second round, after
having been returned to the House previously as per the first
proviso. Then the Court has stated that only exception to this
general rule is when the bill presented in the second round is
materially different from the one presented in the first instance to
the Governor.
• Paras (VIII) and (IX) are repeated in Paragraph 435 and pointed above.
• By the decisions in A.G. Perarivalan and Keisham, if no time limit for
the exercise of power is prescribed, the courts are well-empowered
to prescribe a time-limit for the discharge of any function or
exercise of any power which, by its very nature, demands
expediency.
• Following timelines are being prescribed:
o Upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, either
withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration
of the President, the Governor is expected to take such an
action forthwith, subject to a maximum period of onemonth.
o The Governor must return the bill together with a message, in case
of withholding of assent contrary to the advice of the State Council
of Ministers, within a period of three months.
o The Governor seeks to reserve the bills for consideration of the
President contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers,
the Governor shall make such reservation within a
maximum period of three months.
o The Governor must grant assent forthwith, in case of presentation
of bill for reconsideration, subject to a maximum period of
one-month. - 3 -
exercise of discretion by the Governor in exercise of his powers
under Article 200 is amendable to judicial review.
• The earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.K. Pavitra, where
it was held that reservation of bills for the consideration of the President
is the discretion of the Governor and exercise of such discretion is beyond
judicial scrutiny, is held to be per incuriam.
• The Governor does not possess any discretion in his exercise of
powers under Article 200 and has to mandatorily abide by the
aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, subject to exceptions set
out (Pg. 396)
• Reservation of a bill for the consideration of the President under Article
201 may arise where a constitutional provision makes the assent
of the President to be a condition precedent to a State
legislation becoming enforceable or for the purpose of securing
some immunity to the State legislation. There may be certain
situations where by peril to fundamental principles of
representative democracy, the Governor may, in exercise of his
discretion, reserve a bill for consideration of the President.
• Repetition of holding that there is no ‘pocket veto’ and ‘absolute veto’.
• Repetition of prescribing time limits.
• The President while considering the bill referred for consideration under
Article 200 on the grounds of patent unconstitutionality to cause peril to
the principles of representative democracy, as a measure of prudence,
the President ought to make a reference to this Court in exercise
of his powers under Article 143 of the Constitution.
• Judicial review is permitted on the grounds of justiciability. State can
approach High Court in the following instances:
o To assail the action of the Governor when the bill is reserved for
consideration of the President, resulting in the following further
situations:
▪ Second proviso to Article 200 that the bill derogate from the
powers of the High Court. The state can assail the actions
and if challenge finds favour, then a Mandamus can be
issued to the Governor.
▪ Bill attracting any provision of Constitution where the assent
of President is condition precedent, Governor is expected to
• The Governor under Article 200 has to exercise his functions under
the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers. Exception
can be second proviso to Article 200 and Article 163 (1), in which
instance the Governor is required to act in his discretion. Further, any- 4 -
make a specific and clear reference and to indicate the
reasons for reservation. Such reservation can be assailed by
State and if challenge finds favour, then a Mandamus can be
issued to Governor.
▪ The Governor reserves the Bill on the grounds of peril to
democracy or democratic principles or other exceptional
grounds, Governor is expected to make a specific and clear
reference and to indicate the reasons for reservation. It
would be open to State Government to challenge such a
reservation on the ground of failure to furnish necessary
reasons.
▪ Governor exhibits inaction, State Government can seek a
Writ of Mandamus.
• State Government can assail before Hon’ble Supreme Court the
action of President on withholding of assent. Grounds are also set
forth (Pg. 407).
• The President exhibits inaction when a bill is reserved for consideration,
the State Government can seek a Writ of Mandamus to the
President from the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Para 432:
…………………… Therefore, we deem the assent to have been
granted.
Paras 367 & 368:
• Finding rendered being summarized as to the power of judicial review in
the subject matter and holding that the State Government can assail the
actions of Governor and the President, seek for Writ of Mandamus against
Governor and the President.
• The courts would be competent to look into the reasons for
withholding of assent and whether they are legally tenable or
not, besides the grounds of malafides and arbitrariness, etc.
(Pgs. 333 – 340).
• In para 369, the Court also has held that the possible situations illustrated
are not meant to be exhaustive and in specific facts of a given
case, the courts may evolve new standards of judicial scrutiny- 5 -
to ensure that the constitutionally prescribed procedure is
adhered to in letter and spirit.
Para 204
• In para 204, the Court on discussion held that If the bill which is
presented to the Governor for assent in the second round could
be said to have been reconsidered by the House or Houses on
wholly different and new grounds, and if those changes are of
such a nature where a reservation for the consideration of the
President may be desirable, then the Governor would not be
precluded from reserving the bill for the consideration of the
President.
The discussion in para 204 is referred to in sub-para (VII) of paragraph
434 under the heading ‘CONCLUSION’.
Posts
0 Comments