By declaring the Tamil Nadu governor’s ‘pocket veto’ as unlawful, the Supreme Court has established a positive precedent.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has declared the Tamil Nadu Governor’s prolonged inaction on state legislation—often termed a ‘pocket veto’—as both illegal and unconstitutional. This decision not only addresses the specific issues in Tamil Nadu but also sets a significant precedent for the functioning of Governors across all Indian states.
Background of the Case
Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed several bills aimed at amending the governance structures of state universities. These bills sought to transfer certain powers from the Governor, acting as the ex officio Chancellor of these universities, to the state government. However, Governor R.N. Ravi delayed action on these bills, neither granting assent nor returning them for reconsideration, effectively stalling their enactment. In response, the Tamil Nadu government filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the Governor’s inaction.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that the Governor’s indefinite withholding of assent was unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor has three options upon receiving a bill:
1. Grant assent
2. Withhold assent
3. Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration
The Court clarified that the Constitution does not permit the Governor to withhold assent indefinitely, as such inaction undermines the legislative process and the will of the people.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling has far-reaching implications for the relationship between state governments and Governors across India:
Reinforcement of Democratic Principles: The judgment underscores that Governors, as unelected officials, must respect the decisions of democratically elected state legislatures and act within the constitutional framework.
Time-bound Decision Making: By setting specific timeframes for Governors to act on bills, the Court aims to prevent undue delays that can hinder governance and policy implementation.
Clarification of Constitutional Roles: The decision delineates the boundaries of the Governor’s discretionary powers, ensuring they cannot be used to obstruct the legislative process.
Reactions from Political Leaders
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin hailed the verdict as a “historic judgment,” viewing it as a victory for state autonomy and federalism. He emphasized that this ruling is not only beneficial for Tamil Nadu but also sets a precedent for all states in India.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and upholding democratic values. By declaring the Governor’s ‘pocket veto’ as unlawful, the Court has reinforced the primacy of elected legislatures in the legislative process and ensured that constitutional functionaries act within their prescribed limits.
UPSC Mains GS Paper II-based questions based on the topic of the Supreme Court declaring the Tamil Nadu Governor’s ‘pocket veto’ as unlawful:
Question 1: The recent Supreme Court verdict declaring the Tamil Nadu Governor’s indefinite withholding of assent to bills as unconstitutional redefines the contours of federalism in India. Discuss its implications on Centre-State relations and the role of Governors in a parliamentary democracy. (250 words)
Question 2: “The misuse of discretionary powers by Governors poses a challenge to the democratic and federal structure envisaged by the Constitution.” In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Tamil Nadu Governor’s inaction, critically analyze the need for reforms in the appointment and functioning of Governors in India. (250 words)
( Source – The indian express Newspaper 9 April )