Why did the Supreme Court intervene in the Tamil Nadu Governor case?

Know Before You Read

1. Article 200 – Governor can assent, withhold, return, or reserve a State Bill for the President.
2. Article 201 – President decides on reserved Bills (assent/withhold).
3. Article 142 – SC’s power to ensure “complete justice”; used to grant deemed assent.
4. Article 143 – President can seek SC’s opinion (Presidential Reference).

Core Highlights

1. Background: Tamil Nadu Governor kept 10 Bills pending since 2020, leading SC (April 2024) to step in.
2. SC’s April 8 Judgment: Fixed 3-month deadline for Governors/President to act; invoked Article 142 to grant deemed assent if delay continued.
3. Presidential Reference (2024): President questioned if SC can impose deadlines not mentioned in Constitution.
4. Union Govt’s Stand: Governor not bound by Council of Ministers when withholding assent; SC cannot “rewrite Constitution.”
5. SC Bench’s Clarification (Aug 2025): The TN case was an “egregious situation”; the solution was case-specific, not a general precedent.

Recent Developments

• Attorney General & Solicitor General: Warned judiciary not to take over executive/legislative powers.
• Bench led by CJI Gavai: Clarified it won’t overrule TN case but only answer constitutional questions.
• Debate continues on Governor’s discretion vs. democratic accountability.

Basics

1. Doctrine of Separation of Powers – Judiciary must not encroach into legislative/executive sphere; but can step in to uphold constitutional governance.
2. Basic Structure Principle – SC must ensure federalism and democratic accountability; Governors cannot act arbitrarily against elected governments.
3. Constitutional Silence – When Constitution is silent (e.g., no time limits for assent), SC may interpret to prevent abuse of power (judicial creativity vs. judicial overreach debate).
4. Comparative Context – In UK & USA, executive veto powers are also time-bound or subject to legislative override; India faces mismatch between discretion and accountability.
5. UPSC Angle: Case highlights friction in Centre–State relations, role of Governor, and judicial review of discretionary powers—a frequent GS-II topic.

Practice Question

With reference to the Tamil Nadu Governor case (2024–25), consider the following:

1. The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to grant deemed assent to Bills.
2. The Presidential Reference questioning this power was issued under Article 143.
3. The Constitution originally provides a fixed 3-month deadline for Governor’s assent under Article 200.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

A) 1 and 2 only
B) 2 and 3 only
C) 1 and 3 only
D) 1, 2, and 3

Q2. Consider the following statements:

1. Under Article 200, a Governor must necessarily act only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
2. Under Article 201, the President’s decision on a reserved Bill is final and binding.
3. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree necessary to ensure “complete justice.”

How many of the above statements are correct?
A) Only one
B) Only two
C) All three
D) None

Q3. Which of the following provisions can be linked to the issue of delay by Governors in giving assent to Bills?

1. Article 200
2. Article 201
3. Article 142
4. Basic Structure Doctrine

Select the correct answer:
A) 1 and 2 only
B) 1, 2 and 3 only
C) 2, 3 and 4 only
D) 1, 2, 3 and 4

Mains Practice Question

Critically analyse the constitutional position of the Governor in India in light of the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. How does this case highlight the tension between federalism and judicial activism?

(Answer in 200–250 words)

Answer Key (Prelims) – Box Format

📦 Answer Box

• Q1 → A) 1 and 2 only
  • (1) Correct: Article 142 was invoked for deemed assent.
  • (2) Correct: Presidential Reference issued under Article 143.
  • (3) Incorrect: Constitution provides no time limit in Article 200.
• Q2 → B) Only two
  • (1) Incorrect: Governor has discretion; not fully bound by Council of Ministers under Article 200.
  • (2) Correct: Article 201 makes President’s decision final.
  • (3) Correct: Article 142 ensures “complete justice.”
• Q3 → D) 1, 2, 3 and 4
  • Article 200 & 201 directly deal with Governor/President’s assent.
  • Article 142 was invoked by SC in this case.
  • Basic Structure Doctrine is indirectly linked (judicial review vs. federalism).