A restoration of sanity to the Constitutional System

The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr., declaring the Governor’s inaction on 10 Bills and subsequent referral to the President as unconstitutional. The Court invoked Article 142 to deem the Bills assented and prescribed time limits for action on State Bills under Articles 200 and 201, reinforcing federalism and legislative supremacy.

Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 200 Clarified – No Absolute Veto: The Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely or use a ‘pocket veto’; he must either assent, withhold with reasons, or send the Bill for reconsideration — which must be returned to him with or without amendments.
• Withholding Assent is Not Final – Article 200 Proviso: The Court reiterated from State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023) that withholding assent must be followed by sending the Bill back to the legislature, keeping the legislative process alive.
• Governor Bound by Council of Ministers – No Discretion: The Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while deciding on assent, including when to propose reconsideration or reserve a Bill for the President.

Judicial Enforcement of Federalism:

• Invocation of Article 142 – Judicial Remedy: The Court used its special powers to declare the 10 Tamil Nadu Bills as deemed assented, marking an unprecedented judicial remedy to a constitutional deadlock.
• Fixed Time Limits – Reasonable Period Doctrine: Time limits of 1 to 3 months were prescribed for Governors and the President to act on State Bills, based on the principle that executive power must be exercised within a reasonable time.
• Judicial Review Applicable – No Immunity: The Court clarified that the functions of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 are not beyond judicial review, reinforcing accountability of constitutional heads.

Constitutional Challenges and Implications:

• Inconsistency in Governor's Discretion – Unresolved Area: The Court’s stance that Governors act only on advice faces difficulty when suggesting amendments to a legislature controlled by the same Council — creating a logical gap.
• Debate on Judicial Overreach – Kerala Governor’s Objection: Critics, including the Kerala Governor, accused the Court of usurping legislative powers by effectively amending constitutional practice through judicial directions.
• Need for Constitutional Amendment – Structural Reform: The judgment exposes lacunae in Articles 200 and 201 and revives the long-standing demand for amending provisions to prevent constitutional paralysis and ensure federal balance.

Practice Question

Q. Discuss the constitutional implications of the Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case with respect to the role of Governors under Article 200. How does the judgment contribute to restoring the balance in India’s federal structure?