State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)

1. Case Title & Citation

State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)
Citation: Supreme Court of India, Civil Writ Petition No. 614 of 2023, decided on 8 April 2025.

2. Court Name & Bench

• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
• Type: Division Bench

3. Date of Judgment

8 April 2025

4. Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Government of Tamil Nadu, representing the State Legislature
• Respondent: Governor of Tamil Nadu

5. Facts of the Case

• The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed several bills.
• The Governor neither gave assent nor returned them, keeping them pending for months.
• The State argued this amounted to a “pocket veto”, stalling the democratic process.
• The matter was taken to the Supreme Court to clarify the scope of the Governor’s powers under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

6. Issues Raised

• Can a Governor indefinitely withhold assent to a bill?
• Does the Governor have power to reserve a bill again for the President’s consideration after it has been re-passed by the State Legislature?
• Are the Governor’s actions subject to judicial review?

7. Arguments of the Parties

• Petitioner (State): 
  • The Governor must act within a reasonable time and cannot paralyze law-making.
  • Once a bill is re-passed, reserving it again for the President is unconstitutional.
• Respondent (Governor’s Office): 
  • The Constitution grants the Governor discretion.
  • No explicit time limit is provided under Articles 200 and 201.

8. Judgment / Final Decision

• The Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot exercise an absolute veto or pocket veto.
• After a bill is re-passed, the Governor cannot again reserve it for Presidential consideration.
• Actions of the Governor are subject to judicial review, including delay in assent.
• The Court directed Governors to respect the constitutional scheme and not undermine state legislatures.

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• Articles 200 and 201 must be interpreted in line with federalism and democratic principles.
• The Governor is a constitutional head, not an independent authority.
• The Court relied on the basic structure doctrine and prior precedents like Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), which emphasized that Governors must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

10. Conclusion / Observations

• This ruling is a landmark in centre–state relations.
• It prevents misuse of gubernatorial powers to obstruct elected state governments.
• It reinforces the idea that constitutional posts cannot be used for political obstruction.
• Significance: Strengthens Indian federalism and ensures smoother legislative functioning.