State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025): The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, clarified the constitutional role of the President under Article 201 by holding that Bills reserved by a Governor for the President's consideration cannot be kept pending indefinitely, thereby reinforcing constitutional accountability and preventing undue delays in the legislative process.
Key Highlights
- Three-Month Time Limit: The President should ordinarily decide on a Bill reserved by the Governor within three months from the date of its receipt.
- No Constitutional Vacuum: Although Article 201 does not prescribe a time limit, constitutional powers must be exercised within a reasonable time.
- Governor Cannot Frustrate Legislature: The Governor cannot reserve Bills arbitrarily or use Article 200 to delay the legislative process.
- Aid and Advice Principle: The President acts on the aid and advice of the Union Council of Ministers (Article 74) while deciding reserved Bills.
- Judicial Review: The exercise of powers under Articles 200 and 201 is subject to judicial review if exercised arbitrarily, mala fide, or contrary to constitutional principles.
- Federalism Reinforced: The Court emphasized that Governors and the President are constitutional functionaries, not political veto points against elected State governments.
- Extraordinary Relief: In the Tamil Nadu case, the Court treated certain Bills as having received assent after finding unconstitutional delay by the Governor.
Constitutional Provision
- Article 200: Empowers the Governor to reserve a Bill passed by the State Legislature for the consideration of the President.
- Article 201: Provides that the President may assent, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the Bill (if it is not a Money Bill) for reconsideration by the State Legislature.
Major Grounds for Reserving a Bill
- Threat to the Powers of the High Court: If a Bill curtails or undermines the constitutional powers or independence of the High Court, the Governor is constitutionally bound to reserve it for the President.
- Conflict with Central Law: Where a State Bill is inconsistent with an existing Central law on a Concurrent List subject, it may be reserved so that, if assented to by the President, it can operate under Article 254(2).
- Matters of National Importance: Bills affecting national security, sovereignty, inter-state interests, or major national policies may be reserved for Presidential consideration.
- Constitutional Doubts: If the Governor believes that a Bill may violate Fundamental Rights, the Constitution, or the Basic Structure, it may be reserved.
- Bills Requiring Prior Presidential Sanction: Certain Bills under constitutional provisions (e.g., Articles 31A, 304(b) or other specified provisions) are generally reserved to obtain Presidential approval.
Procedure
- State Legislature passes the Bill.
- Governor reserves the Bill under Article 200.
- Bill is sent to the President.
- Under Article 201, the President may:
- Grant assent;
- Withhold assent; or
- Return the Bill (except a Money Bill) for reconsideration.
- Even after reconsideration by the State Legislature, the President is not bound to give assent.
Constitutional and Functional Differences between the President and the Governor
| Aspect | President | Governor |
|---|---|---|
| Legislative Powers | Summons, prorogues Parliament, dissolves Lok Sabha; assents, withholds or returns Parliamentary Bills (Art. 111); promulgates joint sitting under Art. 108. | Summons, prorogues and dissolves State Legislature; assents, withholds, returns or reserves State Bills for the President (Art. 200). |
| Pardoning Powers | Under Article 72, can grant pardon, reprieve, respite, remission, suspend, remit or commute sentences, including death sentence and court-martial cases. | Under Article 161, can grant similar relief for offences under State laws but cannot pardon a death sentence (can only suspend, remit or commute it). |
| Ordinance Powers | Can promulgate Ordinances when Parliament is not in session (Art. 123), having the same force as an Act of Parliament. | Can promulgate Ordinances when the State Legislature is not in session (Art. 213); prior Presidential instructions are required in specified cases. |
| Emergency Powers | Exercises National, State and Financial Emergency powers under Articles 352, 356 and 360. | Has no emergency powers; may submit a report recommending President's Rule under Article 356. |
| Diplomatic & Military Roles | Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces; appoints ambassadors and high commissioners; receives foreign diplomats; concludes treaties in the name of India. | No diplomatic or military role; functions only as the constitutional head of the State. |
| Discretionary Powers | Generally bound by the aid and advice of the Union Council of Ministers; virtually no independent discretionary powers. | Enjoys limited constitutional discretion, such as reserving Bills for the President, appointing a Chief Minister in a hung Assembly, and recommending President's Rule. |
Landmark Judgments on the Powers of the Governor and the President
Judgments on the Governor's Powers
- Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): Governor is a constitutional head and ordinarily acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Discretionary powers are exceptional, not the rule.
- Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): Governor's report recommending dissolution of the Assembly is subject to judicial review. Mala fide or arbitrary reports can be struck down.
- Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): Governor cannot interfere in legislative proceedings at will. The Governor cannot direct the Assembly to decide issues like removal of the Speaker without constitutional authority.
Judgments on the President's Powers
- Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): The President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74 except in narrowly recognized situations.
- Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981): The President's power of pardon under Article 72 is exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025): Clarified the President's role under Article 201:
- Presidential assent cannot be kept pending indefinitely.
- A decision should ordinarily be taken within three months.
- Presidential inaction is also amenable to judicial review in appropriate cases.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court's rulings reaffirm that the President and the Governor are constitutional guardians, not political veto holders. Their powers over State Bills must be exercised promptly, on constitutional principles, and subject to judicial review, thereby strengthening cooperative federalism, democratic accountability, and the rule of law.
