Constitutional Obligations On Governor To Assent & Act Promptly In Passing Bills

Supreme Court of India in case involving The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamilnadu & Anr, was hearing a Civil Writ Petition filied by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Governor on issues of delay in giving assent to bills passed by the State Legislature, refusal of sanction for investigation against public servants, undue delay in taking action on files relating to premature release of prisoners, and delayed appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). The petition requested multiple directions against the Governor, citing constitutional mistakes and requesting timely action on these issues.

The background facts of the case indicate that a number of bills tabled by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly between 2020 and 2023 were awaiting assent by the Governor. The Governor then withheld assent to ten bills and reserved two for consideration by the President.

State Government argued that Governor's actions such as the unwarranted delay and simpliciter withholding of assent refusing to return bills with a reconsideration message, were unconstitutional and tantamount to exercising a 'pocket veto' which was not provided in the Indian Constitution. The State further asserted that the Governor is subject to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in the administration of matters pertains to grant of assent to bills with the exception of extremely limited areas of discretion.

In deciding the writ petition, the Supreme Court made relevant pronouncements of great import about the constitutional responsibilities and role of the Governor in terms of Article 200 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that while Article 200 provides the Governor with three options regarding a bill passed by the Assembly – to grant assent, to withhold assent, or to reserve it for the President's consideration – the option of withholding assent must be accompanied by a return of the bill to the legislature with a message for reconsideration "as soon as possible".

The Apex Court held explicitly that 'simpliciter withholding' of assent without further action is not acceptable under the constitutional scheme since it would amount to an absolute veto, which does not exist in the Indian scenario. But the Apex Court explained that the phrase "the Bill falls through unless the procedure indicated in the first proviso is followed" used by it in its previous judgments has to be read keeping in mind the whole process of returning the bill for reconsideration.

The Court further held that the Governor's power under Article 200 is not entirely discretionary and is generally to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, with the exception of reserving bills under the second proviso which relates to safeguarding the powers of the High Court. The Court declared the view taken in B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India that the Constitution confers general discretion upon the Governor regarding the reservation of bills for the President to be per incuriam.

Importantly, the Supreme Court emphasized that the exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 is amenable to judicial review, particularly in cases of inaction, malafide, or irrelevant considerations. Although it might not be possible to impose a rigid timeline, the Apex Court noted that the use of "as soon as possible" implies constitutional urgency, and inordinate delay is judicially reviewable.

Supreme Court also alluded to the President's position under Article 201, suggesting that where there are problems about the constitutionality of state legislation, it would be prudent for the President to refer a question to the Supreme Court under Article 143. Lastly, Supreme Court wished that constitutional functionaries will act together and in harmony and give emphasis to the people's welfare.

Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan
Date of Judgment: 08-04-2025