Case Summary: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2025 SC 1145

• Title: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu
  
• Citation: AIR 2025 SC 1145
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench:  J. B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
• Date of Judgement: 8 April 2025
• Relevant Provisions and Statutes: Article 200 & Article 201 of the Indian Constitution

Brief Facts:

• Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed 12 bills (primarily related to state university administration and the appointment of Vice-Chancellors) and sent them to Governor R.N. Ravi for assent.
• The Governor sat on these bills for over two years without granting assent or returning them for reconsideration, prompting the State of Tamil Nadu to file a writ petition in the Supreme Court on October 31, 2023.
• Following observations by the Supreme Court in November 2023, the Governor withheld assent to 10 of these bills and returned them to the Assembly.
• On November 18, 2023, the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed all 10 bills without material changes and resubmitted them to the Governor.
• Instead of granting assent, the Governor reserved these 10 re-passed bills for the President’s consideration on November 28, 2023. 

Issues:

1. Whether the Governor can keep State Bills pending indefinitely without taking a decision?
2. Whether the Governor can withhold or reserve a Bill even after it is re-passed by the State Legislature?
3. Whether such inaction violates Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution?
4. Whether the Governor has a “pocket veto” power under the Indian Constitution?

Judgement:

• The Supreme Court held that the Governor’s conduct was unconstitutional and improper.
• Keeping Bills pending or reserving them after re-passage was declared contrary to Articles 200 and 201.
• The Court clarified that the Governor must choose one constitutional option — assent, return, or reservation — within a reasonable time.
• It reaffirmed that Governors are constitutional heads, not political veto authorities.
• The Court used its constitutional powers to ensure that the legislative process is not paralysed by inaction.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Governor cannot sit on Bills without taking a decision. The Constitution does not allow a “pocket veto”. Once a Bill is passed (and especially when re-passed), the Governor must act within a reasonable time and generally follow the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Keeping Bills pending or blocking them through delay goes against democratic functioning and is unconstitutional.

Final Decision:

The Supreme Court held that a Governor cannot indefinitely delay or block State legislation, as the Constitution does not permit a pocket veto, and the Governor must act reasonably and in accordance with ministerial advice.