1. Introduction
State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) is a significant Supreme Court judgment interpreting Article 200 of the Constitution, particularly the Governor’s role in granting assent to State Bills.
2. Facts
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed several Bills which were sent to the Governor. The Governor delayed action and later reserved some Bills for the President even after reconsideration. The State challenged this delay before the Supreme Court.
3. Issues
The Court examined whether the Governor can delay assent indefinitely, whether a pocket veto exists, whether the Governor is bound by ministerial advice, and whether such actions are subject to judicial review.
4. Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot indefinitely delay assent and that the Constitution does not permit a pocket veto. It clarified that the Governor must act within a reasonable time and is generally bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Court also held that such actions are subject to judicial review and, using Article 142, deemed assent to certain Bills.
5. Ratio Decidendi
The Governor cannot obstruct the legislative process through inaction and must act in accordance with constitutional principles and democratic governance.
6. Significance
The judgment strengthens federalism, ensures accountability of Governors, and upholds the supremacy of elected legislatures.
7. Conclusion
This case reaffirms that the Governor’s role is constitutional and limited, and that real executive power lies with the elected government.
