In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court of India has brought clarity to the long-debated powers of State Governors, marking a significant development in the constitutional discourse on Centre-State relations.
Introduction: The Constitutional Conundrum of Article 200
Article 200 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Governor of a State to either assent to, withhold assent from, or reserve for the President’s consideration any Bill passed by the State Legislature. However, the provision is silent on how much time a Governor can take to act upon such a Bill. Over the years, this silence has been interpreted by some Governors as an unfettered discretion to indefinitely delay granting assent—effectively stalling State legislation and disrupting the will of elected Assemblies.
This ambiguity came under the scanner in the landmark case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), wherein the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether such delays were constitutionally permissible and what limits—if any—applied to the Governor’s discretion under Article 200.
Backdrop of the Case: A Challenge to Inaction
The Tamil Nadu Government, through a writ petition under Article 32, approached the Supreme Court highlighting the Governor’s inordinate delay in assenting to several key legislations passed by the State Assembly. In some cases, the delay extended beyond a year, with no communication or explanation.
The petition contended that such deliberate inaction was contrary to the scheme of the Constitution, which mandates that the Governor functions on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The absence of any statutory time limit, the State argued, should not be interpreted as a license to defeat the will of the Legislature and thereby the democratic process.
The Union, defending the Governor, contended that the constitutional framework allowed him time to review and reflect on legislation, especially when it involved public interest or raised federal concerns.
The Supreme Court’s Interpretation: A Reassertion of Constitutional Morality
In its verdict dated April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled against the discretionary stalling of Bills by Governors. While acknowledging that Article 200 does grant certain powers to the Governor, the Court emphasized that these powers must be exercised within constitutional limits and in the spirit of cooperative federalism.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment:
- No Indefinite Delay Permitted: The Court held that the absence of a specific time limit under Article 200 does not imply unbounded discretion. A Governor must act within a reasonable time, and “reasonableness” must be judged by the nature of the Bill and urgency involved. Delay defeats democracy.
- Repassed Bills Bind the Governor: If a Bill is returned to the State Legislature and is re-passed with or without modifications, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent. The option to withhold assent ceases to exist at that stage.
- Doctrine of Constitutional Functionality: Relying on the doctrine of constitutional morality and purposive interpretation, the Court held that Governors are not intended to function as political gatekeepers but as facilitators of the legislative process.
- Judicial Review is Maintainable: The Court ruled that egregious delays, malafide withholding, or acts that frustrate the constitutional process could be subjected to judicial scrutiny under Article 226 or 32. The power to review inaction is essential to uphold the rule of law.
- Federalism and Democratic Governance: The judgment underlines that State autonomy and legislative competence are not to be thwarted by an unelected authority. The Governor’s role is ceremonial and facilitative, not obstructive.
Parliament vs. Judiciary: Has the Supreme Court Overreached?
A common critique is whether the Court has gone beyond its brief and entered the domain of constitutional amendment—a power that solely vests in Parliament under Article 368. However, the Court’s ruling does not alter the text of Article 200. Rather, it interprets the silence of the provision in a manner that makes the Constitution functional, harmonious, and aligned with democratic principles.
Just like in the Basic Structure doctrine, or in cases like S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), where the misuse of Article 356 was curtailed, the Supreme Court has once again filled the constitutional vacuum through judicial reasoningand constitutional ethics.
Implications: A Turning Point for Centre-State Relations
The verdict is a powerful message to both the Centre and the Governors across India. It establishes that:
- State legislatures cannot be undermined by inaction or political strategy;
- Governors must uphold their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution;
- A legislative mandate cannot be suspended without constitutional consequence.
This will especially impact States where tensions between the ruling party in the State and the Central Government have led to friction in legislative matters. The judgment reclaims the constitutional space for States’ law-making authority.
Conclusion: A Win for Federalism and the Rule of Law
The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu is not merely a procedural correction. It is a constitutional reaffirmation—that elected legislatures are supreme in a democracy, and unelected functionaries must act as facilitators, not arbiters of politics.
By setting boundaries for the Governor’s role under Article 200, the Court has fortified Indian federalism, restored balance between constitutional organs, and reaffirmed that in a parliamentary democracy, delay is denial—and denial is unconstitutional.
