Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy:  THE HINDU

Context:

The Supreme Court judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu v/s The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr case clarifies the Governor’s role in granting assent to Bills under Article 200 of the Constitution.

Why Is This Judgment Important?

Several States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana have faced problems where Governors, appointed by the central government, refuse to approve Bills for years. This delay creates tension between elected state governments and unelected Governors. The 2025 ruling sets clear rules to prevent such delays, strengthens state autonomy, and ensures the Constitution works as intended.

What Happened in Tamil Nadu?

The Tamil Nadu Governor held onto 10 Bills passed by the state legislature between 2020 and 2023 without deciding whether to approve or reject them. The Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court in 2023. 

The state legislature re-passed the Bills in November 2023 to push the Governor to act. Instead of approving them, as required by the Constitution, the Governor sent all 10 Bills to the President of India. The President then withheld assent, effectively rejecting the Bills.

The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, ruled that the Governor’s actions were illegal and unconstitutional. The Court said the Governor cannot send re-passed Bills to the President unless there are exceptional reasons, like threats to democracy. 

The court also declared that the President’s rejection of the Bills was invalid. Using its special powers under Article 142 (which allows the Court to do “complete justice”), the Court deemed the 10 Bills as approved from the date they were re-submitted to the Governor. This was a bold move, as it’s rare for the Court to override both the Governor and President like this.

Article 200  

Article 200 of the Constitution outlines what a Governor must do when a state legislature passes a Bill and sends it for approval. The Governor has four options:

1. Give assent: Approve the Bill, making it law.
2. Withhold assent: Refuse to approve the Bill, but they must send it back to the legislature with reasons for reconsideration.
3. Return for reconsideration: Ask the legislature to review the Bill or specific parts, but if the legislature re-passes it (with or without changes), the Governor must approve it.
4. Reserve for the President: Send the Bill to the President if it involves matters like High Court powers or conflicts with central laws, but this must happen at the first instance, not after re-passage.

Key Points of the Supreme Court’s Ruling

Time Limits for Action

The Court set strict deadlines: Governors must decide on Bills within one month (to withhold assent or reserve for the President) and no longer than three months. If they fail, states can approach the courts for help. This rule also applies to the President under Article 201, which governs Bills reserved by Governors. The Court said indefinite delays threaten federalism, as they paralyze state governance.

No Discretionary Power Without Advice

Governors must act on the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers (led by the Chief Minister) when deciding to withhold assent or reserve a Bill for the President, except in rare cases (e.g., Bills affecting High Court powers).

Judicial Review Applies

The Court ruled that both the Governor’s and President’s actions under Articles 200 and 201 can be challenged in court. No constitutional authority is above judicial review.

If a Governor delays Bills for personal or political reasons, or if the President withholds assent without justification, states can seek a court order (writ of mandamus) to enforce action. This strengthens accountability.

Criticisms and Controversies

Time Limits: Critics say the Court shouldn’t set timelines for Governors or the President, as Article 200 doesn’t mention specific deadlines. Only Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368 to add such rules.

Constitution Bench: Some lawyers claim the case involves “substantial questions of law” (e.g., interpreting Articles 200 and 201) and should’ve been decided by a five-judge Constitution Bench under Article 145(3), not a two-judge bench.

Federal Balance: Some experts warned that giving states too much power could create an “imbalance in the federal structure” if not balanced with constitutional discipline. The central government reportedly plans to file a review petition, arguing the ruling limits the President’s powers.

The Supreme Court countered these criticisms by saying it only clarified the “inherent meaning” of Articles 200 and 201 to prevent constitutional authorities from degrading democracy. It argued that judicial review is essential to ensure no one, not even the President, is above the law.

Must Read Articles: 

Governor Withholding Assent

Revives Rajamannar Committee

Source: 

THE HINDU