SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VERSUS PRESIDENT OF INDIA

 

Between 2020 and 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed 13 bills, many concerning university governance reforms, notably transferring the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from the Governor to the state government.

Governor Ravi withheld assent to 10 of  these bills without providing reasons or returning them for reconsideration, leading to significant legislative gridlock.

In response, the Tamil Nadu government filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court in October 2023, challenging the Governor's inaction as unconstitutional under Article 200 of the Constitution.

Some of these 10 bills were withheld by the Governor or reserved for the President under Article 200 of the Constitution.

On April 8, 2025, a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered a landmark judgment, declaring the Governor's actions as "illegal" and "erroneous in law."

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had used the court's special powers under Article 142 to resolve a face-off over stalled Bills between the DMK government in Tamilnadu and Governor RN Ravi.

The court, after declaring the Governor's refusal to approve 10 Bills as "illegal and arbitrary", observed that the President must consult the courts on constitutional matters.

As per Article 200 which deals with the Governor's powers, Governor has powers to assent to a bill or withhold assent or even reserve the bill for the President's consideration. Having delayed the bills duly passed by the Tamilnadu Government without taking any action and on the matter being taken to the Supreme Court by the Tamilnadu Government, Tamilnadu Governor had at last reserved the 10 bills for the President's consideration.

The Court emphasized that reservation should occur only before a bill is returned for reconsideration and hence the Court said that the Governor's act of reserving the re-passed bills for the President's consideration was deemed unconstitutional.

No Absolute Veto or Pocket Veto: The  Supreme Court clarified that Article 200 does not grant the Governor an absolute veto. Once a bill is returned and re-passed by the legislature, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent. 

The Court affirmed that the Governor's actions under Articles 200 and 201 are subject to judicial review, especially in cases of mala fide intent or unreasonable delays.

Having find fault with the Governor's inaction in respect of 10 bills, the Court, on invoking its powers under Article 142, ruled that  the 10 pending bills were deemed to have received assent.

This rare judgment of the Two Supreme Judges is to reinforces the principles of parliamentary democracy by ensuring that Governors cannot obstruct the legislative process through inaction. It delineates the constitutional boundaries of gubernatorial powers and upholds the supremacy of elected state legislatures.

Following the Supreme Court verdict, President Droupadi Murmu raised concerns over the Supreme Court's authority to set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on state bills, invoking Article 143(1) to seek the Court's opinion on this matter.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin criticized this move, asserting that it undermines judicial authority and the timely implementation of state legislation.

Key Constitutional Provisions Involved are:

•       Article 143(1): The President can refer a question of law or fact to the Supreme Court for its opinion, which is advisory in nature.

•       Article 200: Governor’s powers regarding assent to bills passed by the State Legislature.

•       Article 201: If a bill is reserved for the consideration of the President, he can either give assent or withhold it or return it (except money bills).

The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution under Article 141 and 142.

The Court expressed that such inaction is unconstitutional, and hinted that it could: Use Article 142 to set a binding procedural framework for governors to follow and Make the timeline binding under Article 141, ensuring uniformity across all states.

The choice of the framers of the Indian Constitution not to fix a strict time limit (e.g., for the Governor or President to grant assent to a Bill) but instead use terms like “as soon as possible” (Article 111, Article 200) or "reasonable time" or leave it silent, reflects both historical context and constitutional philosophy. And the Apex  Court is well within its constitutional powers to fix a suitable time line to take a decision by both Governors and the President.

"Pocket veto" is a special type of veto power used by the President  where a bill is indirectly rejected by not taking any action on it within a certain time period. This is called a pocket veto, because the President is said to have "put the bill in his pocket" and ignored it, effectively killing it without a formal veto.

Pocket Veto was available only for the President and not for Governors.

In 1986, President Zail Singh exercised a pocket veto by not taking action on the Postal Bill, effectively stalling it.

In 1986, the Rajiv Gandhi government introduced an amendment that gave the government the power to intercept and open postal articles, ostensibly in the interest of public safety, order, and national security.

It was criticized for being draconian, arbitrary, and a threat to privacy and civil liberties.

And President  Zail Singh's Pocket Veto was hailed by  Justice Krishna Iyer (former SC judge) as under:

“The power of withholding assent must not be abused or used for political ends. But in this case, Zail Singh acted out of concern for the Constitution.”

 

The following two articles are relevant here:

Article 111 concerns the President and Parliament,

Article 201 concerns the Governor and State Legislatures.

•       Article 111 ensures that once Parliament re-passes a returned Bill, the President must assent to it.

•       Article 201, however, does not bind the President even if the State Legislature re-passes a Bill after reconsideration.

Thus, the President has a stronger veto over State Bills than over Union Bills.

While Article 111 is designed to uphold parliamentary supremacy in the Union, Article 201 reflects central oversight over states, allowing the Union executive (via President) to block or delay state laws.

But both Articles are silent on time limits, leading to problems of indefinite delays or “pocket vetoes” in practice.

Now the matter is again gone to the Supreme Court who was approached by the President of India with 14 questions to answers.

 

 

The newly appointed Chief Justice of India Shri B.R.Gavai had observed that the three pillars of democracy - Judiciary, Legislature and Executive - are equal. And the Constitution is Supreme."

Some Important Questions raised by the President are jotted down here:

1.   Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

2.   2. If a Governor's exercise of constitutional discretion is justiciable -- subject to a trial in court. Article 361 of the Constitution, which says the President or the Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of office, was cited.

3.   In the absence of a constitutionally-prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?

Incidentally, while the Supreme Court is concerned and worried about the time line for disposable of bills sent to the President/Governors, the Citizens of India want to pose a question - why there are no time line set for disposal of cases in the Supreme Court of India?

The present position of pending cases in the Supreme Court are over 70,000 cases and some cases were pending over years.

The Present Position:

The Supreme Court is expected to convene a Constitution Bench to deliberate on the President's reference, given the substantial constitutional questions involved. Under Article 145(3), such benches consist of at least five judges and are tasked with interpreting significant constitutional issues.

In its 75-year history, the Supreme Court has received 15 references in exercise of its advisory jurisdiction and the present one is its 16th reference.

OUR OBSERVATIONS:

Delay in any instance is to be treated as Denial and more so if it pertains to governance. Hence it is not fair on the part of the Tamilnadu Governor R.N.Ravi in keeping the passed and repassed bills without taking action for months together.

As Article of the Constitution mentions that the Governors are to take decisions as soon as possible - vide Article 200, 'as soon as possible', according to the Supreme Court, implies urgency and therefore the Governor is expected to act within a reasonable time  period, generally between one to three months, on bills presented for assent.

Further, the SC referred to the 2016 Office Memorandums issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which prescribed a three-month timeline for decisions on state bills reserved for the President. 

The Court invoked recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010), both of which called for time-bound decisions on reserved Bills.

But in suggesting the time line for the President and Governors, the Supreme Court seemed to have crossed Lakshman Rekha with their harsh and unpalatable epithets forgetting that the President/Governors are constitutional heads answerable to the Constitutions of India.

It would have been better if the Supreme Court, instead of judgmental rulings, had suggested to the President or Central Government to make time frame fixed as per the  2016 Home Ministry Memorandums which was even quoted by the Court.

Now all 10 Tamilnadu Government Bills are with the President who will take decision only after getting the opinion of the Constitution Bench.

One Benchmark  for all stake holders to follow is:

SUPREMACY OF CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINED BY ALL IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS.

JAI HO INDIAN CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.