Supreme Court uses discretionary powers to effectuate 10 pending Bills in Tamil Nadu
Pendency of bills before Tamil Nadu GovernorJudges: J.B. Pardiwala J, R. Mahadevan J
“While the framers of the Constitution set out with the vision: the Governor would be the constitutional head, a sagacious counsellor and advisor to the ministry. Someone who can pour oil over troubled waters. What has unfolded before us in the instant litigation has been quite the opposite. This Court has been called upon to calm the troubled waters stirred by the ensuing long-drawn battle of a high constitutional order between the petitioner and the respondent”.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala’s opening words in Court today summarise the crux of the case. The bench also comprising Justice R. Mahadevan, unanimously pronounced the judgement declaring that the Tamil Nadu Governor, R.N. Ravi’s delay in granting assent to state legislature bills was erroneous and illegal. The Tamil Nadu government had approached the Court through a writ petition in 2023, contending that the Governor withheld assent to several bills for over three years. The bench had reserved judgement in the case in February 2025.
Representing the Governor and the Union were Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee. Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, and P. Wilson appeared for Tamil Nadu.
Background
On 31 October 2023, the government of Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court challenging Governor R.N. Ravi’s decision to keep various Bills and other proposals submitted by the state government pending indefinitely.
The state government pointed out that there were four categories of “cases” which had been kept pending by the Governor with no response.
The first category of cases related to 12 bills that had been passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly between 2020 and 2023. Article 200 of the Constitution states that after the passage of a Bill by a state Legislative Assembly, or in case of a bicameral legislature, both Houses of the state, the Bill ought to be presented to the Governor. The Governor shall then have either of three options: to assent to the Bill, withhold assent from the Bill, or reserve the Bill for consideration by the President.
Article 200 also mentions that the Governor, after the presentation of the Bill, must return it “as soon as possible” along with a message requesting the House to reconsider specific provisions within or the entirety of the Bill. If the Bill were to be passed again and resent to the Governor, the Governor is obligated to not withhold it.
Tamil Nadu has said that the 12 Bills sent to the Governor between 13 January 2020 and 28 April 2023 amend legislations that established state universities in Tamil Nadu.
Eight of the 12 Bills seek to empower the state government to appoint the Vice Chancellor of the universities instead of the Governor, one Bill seeks inclusion of a government nominee on a selection panel for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor, two Bills seek to grant the government the power of inspection and enquiry instead of the Chancellor of the university, three Bills seek inclusion of the Finance Secretary in the Syndicate of all Universities (except three government universities), and one Bill seeks to establish a government Ayurveda university. One Bill also seeks complete control of the state government over the appointment of Vice Chancellors of all state universities (barring the University of Madras) instead of the Governor.
The second category of pending cases pertains to files submitted by the state government between 10 April 2022 and 15 May 2023 which seek sanction for prosecution of public servants for various crimes involving acts of moral turpitude, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Further, the government has argued that 54 files on the premature release of prisoners, submitted to the Governor between 24 August 2023 and 28 June 2023 have remained pending.
Finally, various proposals for the appointment of members for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission have remained pending. Article 316 of the Constitution states that the Chairman and other members of a State Public Service Commission are to be appointed by the Governor.
On 10 November 2023, the Bench found that the pendency of the proposals and Bills was “a matter of serious concern.” It issued notice to the Union of India through the Home Ministry and requested the Attorney General or Solicitor General to assist the Court. It listed the matter for 20 November. Following this, a record of proceedings was forwarded to the Attorney General and Solicitor General, although notice could not be issued to the Union since the Tamil Nadu government had not paid the process fees. No documents were filed as of 17 November.
On November 20, the Court learned that the Governor had “withheld assent” (the constitutional term for sending the Bill back to the Assembly) from 10 of the Bills. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud observed that the Governor had only now withheld assent to the Bills after the order of the Court on 10 November, even though the Bills had been pending since January 2020. Notably, following the Governor’s “withholding”, the Legislative Assembly had readopted the Bills. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, while moving the resolution to reconsider the Bills, stressed on the point that, under Article 200, the Governor “shall not withhold assent” when a Bill is repassed by the Assembly.
The Attorney General noted that since the Bills pertained to the Governor’s powers in the appointment of Vice Chancellors, some “reconsideration was required.” When the Court pointed out that Bills had been pending since January 2020, the Attorney General argued that R.N. Ravi had only been appointed in 2021, to which the Court responded that the “issue is not whether any particular Governor delayed but whether in general there has been a delay in exercising constitutional functions.”
CJI Chandrachud stated that the question he wished to answer was whether, under Article 200, the Governor was mandated to resend a Bill to the legislature, or whether he could simply say that he was withholding assent. The petitioners argued that such a “pocket veto” did not exist—if the Governor is allowed to withhold bills indefinitely, “governance will be paralysed.” The CJI also asked the petitioners whether the Governor could send the Bill to the President after it had been re-passed by the Assembly. The petitioners argued that the Governor had no such power.
The Bench further recorded that out of the 181 Bills submitted to Governor R.N. Ravi, 152 have received assent, five were withdrawn by the state government, nine were reserved for the assent of the President, assent was withdrawn from another nine Bills, and five Bills received in October 2023 were under consideration.
No “absolute veto” on bills for Governor
Justice Pardiwala held that once a state legislature passes a Bill, the Governor’s role under Article 200 of the Constitution is limited to three clear options: granting assent, withholding assent, or reserving the Bill for the President’s consideration.
He further explained that the first proviso to Article 200—which allows the Governor to return a Bill for reconsideration—operates in conjunction with the power to withhold assent. This means that when a Governor returns a Bill, it is considered part of the process of withholding assent. Once the legislature re-passes the Bill, with or without amendments, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent. He cannot reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration at this stage.
The Tamil Nadu government had submitted that Governor Ravi did just that—reserved Bills for the President after the state legislature had re-enacted them.
Justice Pardiwala affirmed that the Court’s earlier decision in State of Punjab v Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023) laid down the correct position. That judgement, authored by former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, with Justice Pardiwala also on the bench, held that Governors cannot “thwart the normal course of lawmaking by State Legislatures.” The Court strongly rejected the notion that an unelected Governor could wield an effective veto over democratically elected legislatures. The bench in today’s decision also reiterated that the constitutional scheme does not make place for the idea of an “absolute veto” or a “pocket veto”.
Granting assent to ensure “complete justice”
Governor Ravi had withheld assent on 10 Bills passed by the state legislature. After the legislature re-enacted these Bills, the Governor chose to reserve them for the President’s consideration. The bench took strong exception to this. Justice Pardiwala observed that such reservation was both “illegal” and “erroneous in law”. Referring to the first proviso of Article 200, the Court pointed to the “clear embargo” placed on the Governor to grant assent to a re-presented bill.
The Court found that the Governor had allowed the Bills to remain pending for an unjustifiably long period and had acted in a manner that was “not bona fide.” They also noted the Tamil Nadu Governor’s “scant respect” of the State of Punjab judgement. In light of this, in an important and perhaps controversial move, the Court held that they had “no choice” but to declare that the ten Bills are deemed to have received the Governor’s assent on the very date they were presented to him the second time.
Justice Pardiwala justified this by invoking the Court’s discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Court to pass any orders necessary to do “complete justice”.
Timelines for granting assent on bills
Justice Pardiwala emphasised that the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 infuses the provision with a clear sense of urgency. It does not permit the Governor to delay action indefinitely or wield a de facto veto over the legislative process. Instead, it imposes an obligation to act swiftly.
In this context, the bench prescribed specific timelines within which the Governor must act, while exercising powers under Article 200. Justice Pardiwala clarified that this move did not amount to “amending the tracks of the Constitution.” Rather, it was aimed at preventing arbitrary delays and ensuring that constitutional functions are carried out in good faith. “This Court, by prescribing a time limit, is guided by the inherent expedient nature of the procedure,” he said.
Importantly, he warned that failure by the Governor to adhere to these timelines would subject them to judicial review. The following timelines were laid out by the Court:
- If the Governor decides to withhold assent or reserve the Bill for the President—on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers—such action must be taken within one month.
- If the Governor withholds assent contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, the Bill must be returned to the legislature within three months.
- If the Governor reserves the Bill for the President, again contrary to advice, this too must be done within three months.
- If a Bill is re-passed and re-presented by the legislature, the Governor must grant assent within one month.
On the question of discretion, the bench noted that the phrase “in his discretion”—originally present in Section 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935—was deliberately omitted when Article 200 was drafted. This, the Court held, was a conscious decision meant to strip the Governor of any discretionary power.
Parting notes for the Governor
“We are in no way undermining the office of the Governor,” Justice Pardiwala assured, as he emphasised that the Governor must act in accordance with the “settled conventions of Parliamentary democracy.” He is not a political actor, but a “friend, philosopher and guide”, he stated.
He stressed that the Governor’s decisions must not be coloured by political considerations. Instead, they must be guided by the sanctity of the constitutional oath. The Governor must serve as a “catalyst and not an inhibitor,” he said, in resolving conflicts, working constructively with the elected state government. He further noted that as the constitutional head of the state, the Governor “must earnestly work in harmony with the state machinery”.
In closing, Justice Pardiwala invoked the words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
“However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad. However bad a Constitution may be, if those implementing it are good, it will prove to be good.”
Currently, a similar case remains pending against the Kerala Governor before a bench led by Justice P.S. Narasimha. The timelines prescribed by the Justice Pardiwala-led bench will no doubt have a bearing on the pending matter.