State Of Tamil Nadu vs Governor Of Tamilnadu 2025 INSC 481 - Article 200 Constitution - Timelines
Constitution of India - Article 200,201 - The scheme of Article 200 does not envisage either the exercise of a pocket or an absolute veto by the Governor- Governor can neither permanently keep a bill with him without according assent to it, nor can he declare a simpliciter withholding of assent - Options available to a State Governor when a bill passed by the State Legislature is presented for assent- When a bill passed by the State legislature is presented to the Governor, the Governor has three options: (i) to give assent to the bill, (ii) to withhold assent from the bill, or (iii) to reserve the bill for the consideration of the President -If the Governor decides to withhold assent, the first proviso to Article 200 mandates that the Governor must, as soon as possible after the presentation of the bill, return the bill to the House or Houses of the Legislature with a message requesting that the House or Houses reconsider the bill or any specified provisions thereof, and in particular, consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message- Once a bill is returned by the Governor and is reconsidered and repassed by the State Legislature without material changes, the first proviso to Article 200 clearly states that the Governor "shall not withhold assent therefrom." The only exception is if the repassed bill is materially different from the bill originally presented. In the case discussed, the reservation of the bills for the President in the second round was deemed illegal- Timelines prescribed: (i) For withholding assent or reserving a bill (upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers): forthwith, subject to a maximum of one month. (ii) For returning a bill after withholding assent contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers: maximum of three months. (iii) For reserving a bill contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers: maximum of three months. (iv) For granting assent to a bill presented after reconsideration: forthwith, subject to a maximum of one month. (v) For the President to take a decision on reserved bills: within a period of three months from the date of receipt. Delays beyond this require recorded reasons to be conveyed to the State . (Para 434) - Delay caused by the Governor beyond the prescribed time-limits would be justiciable and the courts, with deference to applicable judicial principles, would be fully competent to ascertain whether the delayed exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 was based on any reasonable grounds or not. (Para 244)
Constitution of India - Article 200,201- a. Where the bill which is under consideration is pertaining to a provision of the Constitution where primacy has been given to the Union government in taking a decision keeping in consideration the desirability of having certain uniform standards of national policy, then the limited grounds of judicial review would be based on arbitrariness, malafides, etc. b. Where the bill which is under consideration pertains to a subject matter or domain within which State legislature has been accorded primacy, and the reservation of the bill is by the Governor contrary to the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, then in exercise of judicial review the courts would be competent to look into the reasons for withholding of assent and whether they are legally tenable or not, besides the grounds of malafides and arbitrariness, etc. 369. We clarify that the possible situations illustrated by above are not meant to be exhaustive and in the specific facts of a given case, the courts may evolve new standards of judicial scrutiny to ensure that the constitutionally prescribed procedure is adhered to in letter and spirit. (Para 368-369)
Constitution of India - Article 200,201-There is no ‘pocket veto’ or ‘absolute veto’ available to the President in discharge of his functions under Article 201. The use of the expression “shall declare” makes it mandatory for the President to make a choice between the two options available under the substantive part of Article 201, that is, to either grant assent or to withhold assent to a bill. The constitutional scheme does not, in any manner, provide that a constitutional authority can exercise its powers under the Constitution arbitrarily. This necessarily implies that the withholding of assent under Article 201 is to be accompanied by the furnishing of reasons for such withholding. (Para 434-XVIII)
Constitution of India - Article 32,226, 200,201- Judicial Review - judicial review of the exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 and the exercise of power by the President under Article 201 - a. Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President in his own discretion and contrary to the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before the appropriate High Court or this Court. Such a challenge can broadly be made on the following grounds: (i) Where the reservation is on the ground that the bill is of a description falling under the Second Proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution, it may be assailed on the ground that the bill or any provision thereof does not so derogate from the powers of the High Court so as to endanger the position which that court is designed by the Constitution to fill. The Governor while reserving a bill on this count shall be expected to provide clear reasons and also point to the specific provision(s) of the bill which, in his opinion, attract the Second Proviso. This question being purely of a legal nature would be completely justiciable and the competent court would be, after a proper adjudication, fully authorized to approve or disapprove of such reservation by the Governor. If such a challenge finds favour with the competent court, then, subject to any other considerations, it would be a fit case for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Governor for appropriate action. If, however, the challenge should fail then the mechanism envisaged under Article 201 of the Constitution will spring into action. (ii) Where the reservation is on account of the bill attracting any provision of the Constitution wherein the assent of the President is a condition precedent for the proper enactment and enforceability of such a bill as a law (such as under Article 364A2) or for the purpose of securing any immunity (such as under Article 31A) or overcoming any repugnancy that may exist qua a Central Legislation (under Article 254(2)), then the Governor is expected to make a specific and clear reference to the President properly indicating the reasons for such reservation and inviting his attention as described in Kaiser-I-Hind (supra). Such a reservation can be assailed by the State Government, if the reference made by the Governor either fails to indicate the reasons for such reservation as discussed above or that the reasons indicated are wholly irrelevant, mala- fide, arbitrary, unnecessary or motivated by extraneous considerations. Then such a reservation would be liable to be set aside. This question being purely of a legal nature would be completely justiciable and the competent court would be after a proper adjudication fully authorized to approve or disapprove of such reservation by the Governor. If such a challenge finds favour with the competent court, then, subject to any other considerations, it would be fit case for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Governor for appropriate action. If however, the challenge should fail then the mechanism envisaged under Article 201 of the Constitution will spring into action. (iii) Where the reservation of a bill by the Governor for the consideration of the President is on the grounds of peril to democracy or democratic principles or on other exceptional grounds as mentioned in M.P. Special Police (supra) and Nabam Rebia (supra) then the Governor would be expected to make a specific and clear reference to the President properly indicating the reasons for entertaining such a belief by pinpointing the specific provisions in this regard and the consequent effect that may ensue if such a bill were to be allowed to become a law. The Governor while making such a reference should also indicate his subjective satisfaction as to why the aforesaid consequences that may ensue cannot be possibly curtailed or contained by taking recourse to the constitutional courts of the country. It shall be open to the State Government to challenge such a reservation on the ground of failure on part of the Governor to furnish the necessary reasons as discussed aforesaid or that the reasons indicated are wholly irrelevant, mala-fide, arbitrary, unnecessary or motivated by extraneous considerations. This being a question completely capable of being determined by the constitutional courts, would be fully justiciable. (iv) Reservation of a bill on grounds other than the ones mentioned above, such as personal dissatisfaction of the Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set-aside forthwith on that ground alone. This will also encompass reservation of a bill by the Governor after having already exercised the option of withholding of assent in terms of Article 200 except in such exceptional circumstance as mentioned in paragraph 204 of this judgment. (v) Where the Governor exhibits inaction in making a decision when a bill is presented to him for assent under Article 200 and such inaction exceeds the time-limit as has been prescribed by us in paragraph 250 of this judgment then it shall be open to the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus from a competent court against the Governor directing expeditious decision on the concerned bill as is the mandate of the Constitution, however, it is clarified that the Governor may successfully resist such a challenge on providing sufficient explanation for the delay caused - Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before this Court. Such a challenge can broadly be made on the following grounds: Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before this Court. Such a challenge can broadly be made on the following grounds: (i) Where a State bill has been reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President on the ground that assent of the President is required for the purpose of making the bill enforceable or securing some immunity therefor, then in such cases the withholding of assent by the President would be justiciable to the limited extent of exercise of such power in an arbitrary or malafide manner. Owing to the political nature of the assent of the President in these categories of bills, the courts would impose a self-restraint. (ii) Where a State bill has been reserved by the Governor, in his discretion, for the consideration of the President on the ground that the bill appears to be patently unconstitutional for placing the principles of representative democracy in peril, the withholding of assent by the President would, in ordinary circumstances, involve purely legal and constitutional questions and therefore be justiciable without any impediments imposed by the doctrine of political thicket. In such cases, it would be prudent for the President to obtain the advisory opinion of this Court by way of a reference under Article 143 and act in accordance with the same to dispel any apprehensions of bias, arbitrariness or mala fides. (iii) Where the President exhibits inaction in making a decision when a bill is presented to him for assent under Article 201 and such inaction exceeds the time-limit as has been prescribed by us in paragraph 391 of this judgment then it shall be open to the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus from this Court. (Para 434-XXIV)
Constitution of India - Article 200 - Governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of his functions under Article 200 and has to mandatorily abide by the advice tendered to him by the Council of Ministers- There are two broad circumstances under which it would be permissible for the Governor to act in his own discretion under Article 200: a. Where the Governor is by or under the Constitution required to act in his discretion. The only situation in which such exercise of discretion has been explicitly laid down in the Constitution is the second proviso to Article 200, that is, where, in the opinion of the Governor, the bill, if assented to, would so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which the High Court is designed to fill by the Constitution; b. Where the Governor is by necessary implication required to act in his own discretion. This would include: (i) Where a bill attracts such a provision of the Constitution which requires the mandatory assent of the President for securing immunity or making the law enforceable. Exercise of discretion is permissible in these cases. For instance, Article(s) 31A, 31C, 254(2), 288(2), 360(4)(a)(ii) etc. (ii) Situations where the exceptional conditions as described in M.P. Special Police (supra) and Nabam Rebia (supra) are applicable i.e., the State Council of Ministers has disabled or disentitled itself; possibility of complete breakdown of the rule of law or by reason of peril to democracy/democratic principles respectively, as a consequence of which an action may be compelled which, by its nature is not amenable to ministerial advice. (Para 318-320)
Pre-legislation consultation -States should enter into pre-legislation consultation with the Central government before introducing legislations on matters pertaining to those provisions of the Constitution where the assent of the President may be required. Likewise, the Central government, should consider the legislative proposals sent by the State governments with due regard and expediency. Such a practice reduces friction between Centre- State relations and also ensures that future roadblocks are overcome in the beginning itself, thereby promoting public welfare. (Para 425)
Quotable Quotes
We take this opportunity to quote Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s concluding speech in the Constituent Assembly, which is as relevant today as it was in 1949 – “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. (Para 439)
It is only when the constitutional functionaries exercise their powers by and under the Constitution that they show deference to the people of India who have given the Constitution to themselves. (Para 440)
The soul of India is its Constitution. Our Republic, the foresight of dynamic visionaries. What a great edifice, they built, ensuring sovereignty with democratic values. The Constitution is our bedrock ensuring our safety and security. It outlines a process that keeps us rooted in values. We read it for reference and for every policy decision. Without it, we would be lost and make many mistakes. It is now seventy-five years old, but we still keep turning to it, why? Because it guarantees our rights and sets benchmarks for our responsibilities. The laws and rules that uplift all people sprout from its pristine womb, welfare of all is its primary concern, but its sanctity and safety should be our prime concern. (Para 441)
