I. INTRODUCTION
However good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot.
– Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
Recently, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (“SC”) led by Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan, in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr., held that the President has limited power to withhold assent on pending state bills. The Court further fixed the scope of the President’s veto powerand held that presidential orders and the constitutionality of a bill are subject to judicial review. In this context, the court analysed two significant constitutional issues in this case;
i. Whether the Governor can reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President when it is presented to him for assent after being reconsidered in accordance with the first provision to Article 200 ?
ii. Whether there is an express constitutionally prescribed time-limit within which the Governor is required to act in the exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution?
In the constitutional history of democratic India, this is the first instance in which a bill became an Act without receiving the assent of either the State Governor or the President of India. The SC held that if the President or the Governor acts unconstitutionally or illegally regarding a bill passed by a State Legislature, then the bill deserves to become an Act in the public interest especially since the Governor is not an elected representative. However, according to Home Ministry guidelines in February 2016, the president must clear the state bills within three months of the date they were passed; thereafter 10 bills pending for two and a half years.
II. STORY SO FAR
To reshape governance in state educational institutions and increase state control over university appointments, the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Science University (Amendment) Bill passed by the previous AIADMK government, has been pending since January 2020. This bill empowers state government to conduct inspections and inquires, replacing the Governor (who was traditionally Chancellor) and included provisions regarding the government nominee on the Vice-Chancellor (“VC”) selection panel. The issue resurfaced in 2022, when the DMK-led government passed a new Madras University (Amendment) Bill, granting greater authority to the State Government instead of the Governor in appointing VC to State Universities and removing Governor authority to appoint the VC including the role of chancellor. The responsibilities of such appointments traditionally fell under the Governor’s purview.
The Governor withheld the bill, justifying his decision by citing the need for representation from the University Grants Commission (“UGC”) in the appointment process, along with concerns over governance provisions in several other bills.
In November 2023, the Tamil Nadu Governor’s office formally notified the withholding of all 10 bills passed by the DMK government, most of which related to appointments and governance in State Universities. When the bills were re-passed by the State Legislature on November 18, 2023, the Governor reserved them on the basis of unconstitutionality and repugnancy for the Presidential assent.
Subsequently, On 31 October 2023, the Tamil Nadu government challenged four categories of cases that had been pending for an indefinite period due to the Governor’s actions in the SC. The Court found the Governor’s decision to reserve the bills for the President legally flawed and declared it ‘non est’ (null and void). On 8 April 2025, two benches led by Hon’ble Justice Pardiwala and Hon’ble Justice Mahadevan again decided on the Governor’s action in case of Tamil Nadu government 10 pending bills, where the court held that, the President has limited power to withhold assent on pending state bills including fixed the scope of the President’s veto power.
III. LANDMARK JUDGEMENT ON WITHHOLDING STATE BILL
Article 200 of the Indian Constitution states that after a bill is passed by a State Legislature and sent to the Governor. Here, the Governor has three options; firstly Assent to the bill; secondly To Withhold assent (if it is not a Money Bill), orreturn it to the State Legislature for reconsideration and lastly Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration. Article 201 deals which prescribed about the President’s powers regarding a bill reserved by the Governor for the President’s consideration. The President may withhold assent or return the bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration. If the bill is not money bill, in that case the president may direct the Governor to return to state legislature for reconsideration and within the period of six months the state legislature can send it to the President for consideration.
In the case of State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, the Court ruled that once the Governor decides to withhold assent to a bill, this must be followed according to Article 200. In this case, the court also ruled that it is in violation of Article 14 which mandates that the exercise of constitutional powers by the Governor should be based on reason and transparency when the Governor withholds assent without proper reason and transparency.
On December 4th, 2023, the governor sought to clarify for reconsideration of the bills and governor informed to the state government that the bill is reserved for the president consideration on the ground on repugnancy. The state government argued that violation of Article 200, because after the reconsideration passed by the state legislature the governor cannot reserved bills for the president consideration and if governor failed to state the reason for reservation on the basis of repugnancy in state bills which decided in the case Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. and Ors., where the constitutional bench ruled on the “doctrine of repugnancy” and held that the Governor should inform the stated repugnancy to state government in specific terms for reconsideration of the bill. Furthermore, when a State Legislature enacts a Bill that is repugnant to an existing Central law on a subject within the Concurrent List, the Bill must be expressly reserved for the President’s consideration under Article 200. The State Government is obligated to clearly identify the provisions causing such repugnancy and formally propose the reservation to the Governor, who shall act accordingly. If the Governor fails to give reason for reserving the bill for the president on the arbitrary, irrelevant and mala fide basis then such action becomes liable to be set aside.
IV. THE COURT’S INTERPRETATION:
The SC further held that if the president has reserved any bill under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution on the basis of the patent unconstitutionality, then the president ought to seek reference as a measure of prudence to the court which prescribed under the Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. Under the Indian Constitution, a State Governor isn’t vested with the power to directly approach the Supreme Court to assess a bill’s constitutionality. However, if the Governor deems a bill passed by the State Legislature to be manifestly unconstitutional, Article 200 allows them to set it aside for the President’s examination. In such cases, the Supreme Court has expressed that the President should ideally invoke Article 143, seeking an advisory opinion from the Court before any law is enacted, effectively enabling a judicial review at the pre-legislative stage. Though not a constitutional obligation, the Court has underlined the importance of this process in maintaining constitutional coherence and preventing the passage of laws that may conflict with foundational legal principles. Furthermore, if the President chooses to deny assent on constitutional grounds, it’s generally expected that they provide clear reasoning and relevant supporting documentation, especially where such a stance diverges from the Supreme Court’s guidance.
The Court, here, interpreted term ‘ought to’ which is mentioned in Article 154H of the Sri Lanka’s Constitution where if the Governor believes that the bill is unconstitutional, then the Governor can refer it to the president and in this case the president must consult the judiciary regarding the unconstitutionality of the bill. If the court upheld the bill’s constitutionality then the Governor was obligated to give assent to the bill.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that both the Governor and the President have limited power when it comes to withholding assent to bills passed by the State Legislature and also ruled that constitutional functionaries must follow constitutional obligations and constitutional obligations such as considering the representation given by the state government cannot be ignored on the basis of administrative delay. They cannot reserve bills for unlimited time and must exercise their constitutional obligations under a reasonable period of time. The court prescribed a time limit of three months from the date on which such reference is received by the Governor while exercising under Article 200 which guides on procedure of inherent expedient nature. The court further said that no absolute veto was available to the president while discharging his function under Article 201 of the Indian Constitution. Meanwhile, the court also interpreted that term “shall declare” which mandates for the president to give assent or withhold assent to a bill and furnish reasons for withholding bills under Article 201. Also included that which doesn’t mean exercising the constitutional provision in an arbitrary manner. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the inaction of the Governor will be subject to judicial review in case withholding assent to a bill, reserving a bill for the president and presenting the bill after the reconsideration by the state legislature.
V. CONCLUSION
In concluding remarks, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution in terms of the president limited power on veto, the president ‘ought to’ seek consultation with judiciary in case of patent unconstitutionality, Governor actions on arbitrary withholding bills would be liable to set aside as well as judicial review, three months’ time limits for withholding state bills which provided by the home ministry in 2016 and Article 143 for the complete justice where the bills were pending from the last two and a half years. The court also interpreted Article 201, where the president has no absolute veto power if he discharging his function under this Article. The pendency of more than 10 bills over five years demonstrated the Governor’s reluctance and inaction. The Court clarified that under Article 200, if the president reserved a state bill on the basis of patent unconstitutionality then ‘ought to’ refer to the constitutional court. This judgement significantly strengthened Indian federalism, cooperative relationships between centre and state, curbing misuse of executive discretion and ensuring legislative accountability.
*This piece is authored by Vikash Kumar, a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) candidate at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.
**Edited and Formatted by the LLB Blog Team