Supreme Court defines limits of Governor’s powers

Source: The post Supreme Court defines limits of Governor’s powers has been created, based on the article “A Governor’s conduct and a judgment of significance” published in “The Hindu” on 14 April 2025. Supreme Court defines limits of Governor’s powers.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2- Polity-Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.

Context: In The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutional limits of gubernatorial authority. The case arose when the Tamil Nadu Governor delayed action on Bills passed by the State Assembly, prompting the Court to reaffirm democratic norms and constitutional constraints.

For detailed information on SC verdict on Governor’s assent to Bills read this article here

Tamil Nadu government approach the Supreme Court

1. Governor’s Inaction: The Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court due to the Governor’s prolonged inaction on 12 Bills that were duly passed by the State Legislature.
2. Political Dispute: Among these Bills were key proposals to limit the Governor’s power to appoint Vice-Chancellors, stemming from a historical dispute over control between the Governor and the State government.
3. Legal Impasse: The Governor did not grant assent or reject the Bills but instead referred them to the President, delaying their implementation.
4. Democratic Principles: The state argued that such indefinite withholding of assent subverts the constitutional order and disrespects the democratic mandate of the State Legislature.

The Constitutional Role of the Governor

1. Not an Independent Authority: The Governor is not a Union representative or an independent authority but is the constitutional head of the State. As per Article 163, he must act on the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers.
2. Limits under Article 200: Article 200 gives the Governor only three options:

• Assent to the Bill
• Withhold and return it for reconsideration
• Reserve it for the President’s consideration
  • The Supreme Court rejected a fourth option — withholding assent indefinitely (pocket veto) — as unconstitutional.

3. Judicial Review Permitted: Though Article 361 grants personal immunity to the Governor, the Court held that his actions can be challenged through judicial review.
4. Limited Discretion: The Governor may act without ministerial advice only in three cases:

• Under Second Proviso to Article 200, if the Bill affects High Court powers
• Under Article 31C, if the Bill seeks immunity from judicial review
• If the Bill violates constitutional values

Judicial Interpretation and Historical Context

1. Interpretation of Article 200: The Court ruled that the Governor must act on a Bill and cannot delay indefinitely. His options are limited to assenting, returning, or reserving the Bill.
2. Constitutional History: The original draft of Article 200 allowed the Governor to act “in his discretion.” But this phrase was deliberately removed during the Constituent Assembly debates, showing that the Governor must follow the advice of the elected government.
3. Example from Punjab Case: In State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023), the Court held that pocket veto is not allowed under Article 200.
4. Example from Tamil Nadu: The Governor delayed 12 Bills, including ones on university appointments, and later referred 10 re-enacted Bills to the President without ministerial advice.
5. Final Step by Supreme Court: Using Article 142, the Court declared that the 10 re-presented Bills would be deemed assented on the date they were re-sent to the Governor. This was done to ensure complete justice.

What broader message does this verdict send?

1. Governors Must Follow Law: The Governor must act based on the advice of the State government. He is not a political authority but a constitutional figure.
2. Legislative Supremacy Upheld: The Court’s decision upheld the legislative will of the elected State Assembly, which had passed all 12 Bills.
3. Judicial Oversight Ensured: The verdict shows that Governor’s actions are not beyond judicial scrutiny, ensuring they remain within constitutional boundaries.

Question for practice:

Examine how the Supreme Court’s verdict in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu reinforces constitutional limits on gubernatorial powers and upholds democratic principles.