No Veto by Silence: Supreme Court reaffirms Constitutional Responsibility under Article 200 of the Constitution of India.

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court's judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu1, decided on April 8, 2025, represents a watershed moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence concerning the balance of power between constitutional functionaries in a federal democracy. This comprehensive judgment addresses fundamental questions regarding the Governor's role under Article 200 and establishes definitive constitutional principles governing State legislative processes.

BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE

Factual Matrix
The State of Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, aggrieved by the governor’s inaction and unconstitutional conduct. Between January 2020 and April 2023, twelve Bills were forwarded for assent, yet no action was taken by the Governor until October 2023—a delay spanning nearly three years. After the Court issued notice on November 10, 2023, the Governor hastily withheld assent simpliciter to ten bills on November 13, 2023, without conveying any message as mandated by the first proviso to Article 200.
The State Legislature reconsidered and repassed all ten bills on November 18, 2023, and forwarded them to the Governor. Unprecedentedly, the Governor reserved all ten Bills for Presidential consideration on November 28, 2023, claiming "repugnancy" with Central legislation. The dispute also involved inaction on prosecutions, prisoner releases, Public Service Commission appointments, and oath administration.

Core Constitutional Questions
The Court framed critical issues inter alia:
(i) the courses of action available under Article 200;
(ii) whether the first proviso attaches to withholding assent;
(iii) whether bills can be reserved after reconsideration;
(iv) whether time-limits should be prescribed;
1 Writ Petition (Civil) No.1239 of 2023
2025 INSC 481
(v) whether the Governor must act on ministerial advice;
(vi) whether gubernatorial actions are justiciable.

KEY LEGAL ARGUMENTS

State of Tamil Nadu's Arguments
The State contended that "pocket veto" is alien to Indian constitutional scheme, as Article 200's use of "shall declare" indicates mandatory action. Relying on State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab2, the State argued the first proviso is intrinsically attached to withholding assent, rendering simpliciter withholding impermissible. Once bills are reconsidered and repassed, the first proviso's language "shall not withhold assent therefrom" mandates granting assent. The State emphasized parliamentary democracy and federalism principles, requesting 2-3 month time-limits, and alleging mala fides in the Governor's conduct.

Governor's Arguments
The Attorney General argued the Governor exercises constitutional responsibility, not ordinary discretion. Simpliciter withholding is appropriate for grossly unconstitutional bills, while the first proviso applies only when bills require amendments. The Governor retains power to reserve bills even after initial withholding. Absent textual prescription, courts cannot read in time-limits; constitutional amendment is required. Assent under Articles 200-201 is non-justiciable.

COURT'S ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The First Proviso's Attachment to Withholding Assent
Affirming and expanding State of Punjab, the Court held the first proviso is intrinsically attached to withholding assent. The expression "shall not withhold assent therefrom" creates a constitutional prohibition against declining assent when bills are reconsidered and repassed. Rejecting the Attorney General's contention, the Court emphasized Article 200's scheme requires expeditious movement of bills between constitutional authorities.

Rejection of Pocket Veto and Absolute Veto
The Court categorically held neither "pocket veto" nor "absolute veto" exists under Article 200. "Shall declare" signifies no scope for inaction; the Governor must adopt one of three courses when bills are presented. The expression "as soon as possible" permeates Article 200 with expediency, prohibiting indefinite delays.
2 (2024) 1 SCC 384

Prescription of Time-Limits
Guided by Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission recommendations, the Court prescribed: (i) three months for granting assent; (ii) three months for withholding with message; (iii) three months for reservation; (iv) one month for reconsidered bills. This establishes judicially determinable standards without deemed assent, making inaction amenable to judicial review.

Justiciability and Judicial Review
While assent granted on ministerial advice may not be justiciable, withholding or reservation in gubernatorial discretion is reviewable against judicially determinable standards. Reviewing jurisprudence including Maru Ram, Minerva Mills, and Indra Sawhney, the Court held all constitutional power is subject to judicial review. Grounds for challenge include: bills not falling under the second proviso; irrelevant, malafide, or arbitrary reasons; political rather than constitutional grounds; and time-limit violations.

Application and Article 142 Powers
The Governor's reservation of reconsidered bills was legally erroneous. Given the first proviso's clear language, reservation after reconsideration is rarely permissible. Finding lack of bona fides, the Court invoked Article 142 powers to deem assent granted to all ten bills, emphasizing its duty to bring authorities within constitutional limits.

Article 201 and Presidential Assent
The Article 201 proviso similarly attaches to withholding assent; simpliciter withholding is impermissible. The Court prescribed six months for Presidential decisions and mandated using the proviso when withholding assent.

SIGNIFICANCE AND CONCLUSION

Precedential Value and Power Balance
This judgment authoritatively settles that the first proviso attaches to withholding assent, rejects pocket and absolute veto, prescribes enforceable time-limits, and clarifies justiciability. It fundamentally recalibrates power toward democratic accountability, preventing gubernatorial offices from becoming instruments for Union interference with opposition-governed States. Time-limits ensure legislatures implement agendas without gubernatorial hostage-taking within their five-year terms.

Constitutional Morality and Limited Government
The judgment expounds constitutional morality and limited government. Affirming "the Constitution is the suprema lex, there is no department or branch of government above or beyond it", it reaffirms basic structure doctrine. Insistence on transparency, expedition, and accountability establishes templates for democratic constitutional power exercise.