Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL
KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL:
LEGAL STUDY MATERIAL FOR ALL
Motto: To support and uplift aspiring legal minds
CLAT PG 2026
CASE SUMMARY WITH MCQ
The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Others
An initiative by-
UJJAWAL DIXIT SUNIDHI SACHDEVA
Advocate, Allahabad High Court B.A.LLB (JMI, New Delhi)
B.A.LLB (NLU Nagpur) CLAT PG 2024- AIR 50
LLM (RML NLU) CLAT PG 2025 -AIR 2
CLAT PG 2023 -AIR 35 Qualified- Haryana Judiciary Mains
CLAT PG 2024 -AIR 22 and Delhi Judiciary Mains
UGC Net Qualified
FOR MORE FREE MATERIAL AND MOCK JOIN TELEGRAM
https://t.me/+OldBBBV1wq5hYTU1
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL
Tamil Nadu Governor's Delay in Assenting to Bills Declared
Illegal, Timelines Set for Governors' Actions Under Article 200
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023 & W.P.(C) No. 1271/2023
Date of Judgment: April 8, 2025
Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
Issue: Whether the Tamil Nadu Governor’s actions of withholding assent to 10 bills and
subsequently reserving them for the President, after being re-enacted by the State Legislative
Assembly, violated the provisions of Article 200 of the Constitution of India.
Background:
The Tamil Nadu government filed a writ petition challenging the actions of the Tamil Nadu
Governor, Dr. RN Ravi, who had withheld assent to 10 bills, the oldest of which had been
pending since January 2020. After these bills were re-enacted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative
Assembly in a special session, the Governor reserved them for the President’s consideration.
The State government contended that the Governor's action violated Article 200 of the
Constitution, which outlines the Governor’s duties in relation to bills passed by the State
Legislature.
Legal Issues:
1. Whether the Governor can withhold assent indefinitely to bills passed by the
State Legislature?
2. Whether the Governor can reserve bills for the President after they have been
re-enacted by the State Legislature?
3. Whether there is a "pocket veto" or "absolute veto" in the constitutional
framework?
4. What is the timeline within which the Governor must act on bills presented to
him?
5. What is the scope of the Governor’s discretion in relation to the advice of the
State’s Council of Ministers?
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL
Arguments:
Petitioners (Tamil Nadu Government): The State argued that the Governor’s action
of withholding assent to bills for an extended period, followed by reserving them for
the President after they were re-enacted, violated Article 200. They argued that once a
bill is re-enacted by the State Legislature after the Governor has withheld assent, the
Governor must act according to the aid and advice of the State Cabinet.
Respondent (Governor’s Counsel): The Governor’s counsel argued that the delay
was due to concerns over the repugnancy of the bills with central laws. The Governor
reserved the bills for the President’s consideration due to this perceived conflict. The
Attorney General also contended that the Governor was justified in his actions.
Supreme Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that:
1. Violation of Article 200:
The Court ruled that the actions of the Governor in withholding assent and then
reserving the bills for the President after they were re-enacted were “illegal and
erroneous in law.” The Governor’s actions were in contravention of the procedure laid
down under Article 200, which requires the Governor to take one of three actions
when a bill is presented: grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the
President. The Court found that the Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely or
reserve bills for the President after they have been reconsidered and re-enacted by the
State Legislature.
2. No Pocket Veto or Absolute Veto:
The Court reiterated that the Constitution does not recognize the concept of "absolute
veto" or "pocket veto" by the Governor. The Governor must act expeditiously, as the
expression “as soon as possible” in Article 200 emphasizes the urgency of the
decision. The Court highlighted that Article 200 mandates that the Governor must
either grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President without any
delay or inaction.
3. Governor Must Act on the Advice of the Council of Ministers:
The Court observed that the Governor must act according to the aid and advice of the
State’s Council of Ministers. The only exception to this rule is when a bill concerns
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL
the powers of the High Court or Supreme Court. The Governor is not permitted to
exercise any discretion contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in
very specific cases.
4. Timelines for Governor’s Actions:
The Court prescribed clear timelines for the Governor to act on bills under Article
200:
o If the Governor withholds assent or reserves a bill for the President upon the
aid and advice of the State’s Council of Ministers, the Governor must take
action within 1 month.
o If the Governor withholds assent contrary to the advice of the Council of
Ministers, the Governor must return the bill to the State Legislature within 3
months, along with a message.
o If the Governor reserves a bill for the President contrary to the advice of the
Council of Ministers, the Governor must make such reservation within 3
months.
o In cases where the Governor receives a bill re-enacted by the Assembly, the
Governor must grant assent within 1 month.
5. Consequences of Delay:
The Court held that failure to act within the prescribed timelines would make the
Governor’s actions subject to judicial review. Any prolonged delay in taking action
on bills undermines the constitutional process and is liable to be set aside.
6. Constitutional Duties of the Governor:
The Court emphasized the Governor’s role in respecting the will of the people, as
expressed through the legislature. The Governor must act impartially, not influenced
by political considerations, and perform the duties in accordance with constitutional
principles. The Court reminded the Governor that his actions should not obstruct the
functioning of the state machinery, which is accountable to the people.
7. Deemed Assent to Bills:
The Court, exercising its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution,
declared that the 10 bills, after being re-enacted by the Tamil Nadu Legislature, would
be deemed to have received the assent of the Governor, as the Governor’s actions in
withholding assent were found to be contrary to constitutional provisions.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL
Conclusions:
1. The Supreme Court declared that the Governor’s action of withholding assent and
reserving the bills for the President after their reconsideration by the State Legislature
was illegal and erroneous.
2. The Court set aside any consequential actions that might have been taken by the
President regarding these bills.
3. The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to deem the bills to have received
assent after they were re-enacted by the State Assembly.
4. The Court stressed the importance of the Governor’s role in respecting the legislature
and acting in accordance with constitutional principles, without resorting to political
expediency.
Judgment Summary:
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for the Governor to act
swiftly and in accordance with constitutional provisions, mandating that bills presented to the
Governor should not be withheld or reserved indefinitely. The Court highlighted the
importance of timely decision-making and the Governor’s duty to respect the will of the
elected government, ensuring that the functioning of the state legislature is not obstructed for
political reasons. The Court’s decision sets a precedent for the Governor’s obligations under
Article 200, reinforcing the constitutional principles of democracy and governance.
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL
MCQs:
1. What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the Governor of Tamil Nadu
withholding assent to the 10 bills?
o A) The Governor’s action was legal and within the constitutional framework
o B) The Governor’s action was illegal and erroneous
o C) The Governor’s action was lawful but required modification
o D) The Governor’s action was constitutional but politically incorrect
o Answer: B) The Governor’s action was illegal and erroneous
2. Which Article of the Constitution governs the Governor's action regarding
assent to bills?
o A) Article 200
o B) Article 123
o C) Article 169
o D) Article 161
o Answer: A) Article 200
3. What did the Supreme Court rule about the concept of a "pocket veto" under
the Constitution?
o A) It is recognized under the constitutional framework
o B) It is not recognized under the constitutional framework
o C) It is only permissible in cases of national emergency
o D) It is an executive power of the Governor
o Answer: B) It is not recognized under the constitutional framework
4. What did the Court hold regarding the Governor's discretion in reserving a bill
for the President?
o A) The Governor can reserve a bill at any time during the process
o B) The Governor can only reserve a bill for the President after the bill is re-
enacted by the Assembly
o C) The Governor can reserve a bill only in the first instance
o D) The Governor cannot reserve bills under any circumstances
o Answer: C) The Governor can reserve a bill only in the first instance
5. Which Constitutional provision dictates that the Governor must act according to
the aid and advice of the State’s Council of Ministers?
o A) Article 163
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL
o B) Article 200
o C) Article 234
o D) Article 123
o Answer: A) Article 163
6. Under what circumstances can the Governor exercise discretion contrary to the
advice of the Council of Ministers?
o A) In matters involving national security
o B) In cases involving bills affecting the powers of the High Court or Supreme
Court
o C) In cases of financial bills
o D) In cases of disputed elections
o Answer: B) In cases involving bills affecting the powers of the High Court or
Supreme Court
7. What was the impact of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the bills that were
withheld assent by the Governor?
o A) The bills were sent back to the President for approval
o B) The bills were deemed to have received the assent of the Governor
o C) The bills were to be re-debated in the Assembly
o D) The bills were to be withdrawn from the legislative process
o Answer: B) The bills were deemed to have received the assent of the
Governor
8. What did the Supreme Court say about the Governor’s role in relation to the
people’s will as expressed through the legislature?
o A) The Governor should act in a manner that represents the interests of the
central government
o B) The Governor should act with respect to the will of the people and the
legislature
o C) The Governor should primarily focus on the Constitution without regard
for the legislature's decisions
o D) The Governor should delay assent to bills that do not align with public
policies
o Answer: B) The Governor should act with respect to the will of the people
and the legislature
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL
9. What did the Supreme Court conclude about the Governor’s delay in acting on
the bills?
A) It was justified due to concerns over repugnancy with central laws
B) The delay was found to be in violation of constitutional timelines and was subject
to judicial review
C) The delay was permissible under Article 200 of the Constitution
D) The delay did not affect the legislative process
Answer: B) The delay was found to be in violation of constitutional timelines and
was subject to judicial review
11. What did the Supreme Court prescribe regarding the action of the Governor
when he withholds assent to a bill contrary to the advice of the State's Council of
Ministers?
A) The Governor must return the bill with a message within 3 months
B) The Governor must withhold assent indefinitely
C) The Governor can send the bill back to the President for reconsideration
D) The Governor must grant assent within one month
Answer: A) The Governor must return the bill with a message within 3 months
12. Which of the following statements regarding the Governor’s action in reserving
bills for the President after re-enactment by the State Legislature is correct?
A) It is permissible for the Governor to reserve bills for the President at any stage of
the process
B) The Governor can reserve the bill for the President only after the second
presentation of the bill by the Assembly
C) The Governor can reserve the bill for the President at the first instance
D) The Governor can reserve the bill for the President only if the State’s Council of
Ministers advises it
Answer: C)
13. Under Article 200 of the Constitution, what is the Governor required to do when
presented with a bill?
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL
A) Choose any action at his discretion
B) Grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President
C) Return the bill to the Assembly for reconsideration without any message
D) Send the bill to the President for approval without any reservations
Answer: B) Grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President
14. Which provision of the Constitution was referenced by the Court in its
judgment, emphasizing that the Governor must act according to the advice of the
Council of Ministers?
A) Article 161
B) Article 200
C) Article 163
D) Article 123
Answer: C) Article 163
15. What principle did the Supreme Court reaffirm regarding the role of the
Governor under Article 200?
A) The Governor can veto any bill without giving reasons
B) The Governor must act expeditiously, without delay, once a bill is presented
C) The Governor can choose to disregard the advice of the Council of Ministers if it
contradicts central policies
D) The Governor should delay assent for bills for up to one year
Answer: B) The Governor must act expeditiously, without delay, once a bill is
presented
16. What did the Supreme Court say about the Governor withholding assent to bills
that have been re-enacted by the State Legislature?
A) The Governor can continue withholding assent indefinitely
B) The Governor must act within one month after the bills are re-enacted
C) The Governor can send the bill back to the President
D) The Governor is not required to act on the re-enacted bills
Answer: B) The Governor must act within one month after the bills are re-enacted
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL
17. In the case, what was the Court’s stance on the Governor's "discretion" under
Article 200?
A) The Governor has full discretion to withhold assent for an indefinite period
B) The Governor’s discretion is limited and must align with the advice of the State
Cabinet, except in certain constitutional exceptions
C) The Governor can use discretion in any matter related to the assent of bills
D) The Governor’s discretion is absolute and cannot be questioned
Answer: B) The Governor’s discretion is limited and must align with the advice of
the State Cabinet, except in certain constitutional exceptions
18. What did the Supreme Court say about the Governor's responsibility in relation
to the legislative process?
A) The Governor is expected to obstruct the legislative process in certain cases
B) The Governor must facilitate the smooth functioning of the legislature and respect
the democratic process
C) The Governor has the power to dissolve the legislature at his discretion
D) The Governor can override the legislature’s decisions based on personal judgment
Answer: B) The Governor must facilitate the smooth functioning of the legislature
and respect the democratic process
19. What did the Court emphasize regarding the Governor’s actions that delay the
assent of bills?
A) Delays are acceptable as long as the Governor cites legal reasons
B) Delays beyond prescribed timelines are subject to judicial review
C) Delays do not matter if the Governor has valid concerns
D) Delays are justified if the bills affect the State's interests
Answer: B) Delays beyond prescribed timelines are subject to judicial review
20. Which of the following was a key aspect of the Court's decision in the case?
A) The Governor’s actions were permissible due to political considerations
B) The Governor’s failure to act timely led to the declaration of the bills as assented
by default
Link for TELEGRAM channel on the first page KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL
C) The Governor can reserve bills for the President at any time after they are
presented
D) The Court upheld the Governor’s refusal to assent as valid
Answer: B) The Governor’s failure to act timely led to the declaration of the bills as
assented by default.
