Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. The recent Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) affirmed that a Governor cannot exercise an absolute or ”pocket” veto on bills, holding that if assent is withheld, the bill must be returned to the legislature ”as soon as possible” for reconsideration, with the Governor having no discretion to withhold assent again. The court established that inaction or indefinite delay is illegal and unconstitutional, prescribing timelines for the Governor’s decision and even ”deeming assent” on pending bills in the Tamil Nadu case, establishing a critical precedent for judicial review of gubernatorial powers. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Governor’s power to an absolute or ”pocket” veto, which allows for bills to be indefinitely delayed.
If a Governor withholds assent to a bill, they are constitutionally obligated to return it to the State Assembly for reconsideration, according to the proviso in Article 200 of the Constitution. If the State Assembly re-enacts a bill after it has been returned by the Governor, the Governor has no choice but to give assent to it and cannot withhold it for a second time. The Court held that indefinitely delaying or remaining silent on bills is unconstitutional and that Governors must act ”as soon as possible” on bills. The judgment expanded the scope of judicial review by setting timelines for the Governor’s actions on bills, allowing state governments to approach courts if these timelines are breached. In the case of the Tamil Nadu, the Court used its powers under Article 142 to ”deem assent” on the long-pending bills, which had the effect of making any subsequent decision by the President on those bills void. (276 words)
[Extracted with edits & revisions from ”The Hindu”, dated 8th April 2025]
In a situation mirroring the Tamil Nadu case, a Supreme Court bench is reviewing several instances where a particular Governor has indefinitely delayed assent on multiple bills passed by the State Assembly, despite Constitutional obligations. If the Supreme Court decides to follow the precedent established in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) regarding pending bills, what would be a likely outcome for these delayed bills?
Correct Answer :
The Supreme Court could deem assent on the pending bills, establishing a critical precedent for judicial review of gubernatorial powers in such cases, as it did in the Tamil Nadu case
Solution :
Correct Answer: The Supreme Court could deem assent on the pending bills, establishing a critical precedent for judicial review of gubernatorial powers in such cases, as it did in the Tamil Nadu case
Step-by-Step Explanation:
1. Understand the Premise:
The question asks about the likely outcome if the Supreme Court applies the precedent set in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) to a situation where a Governor indefinitely delays assent on multiple bills passed by a State Assembly.
2. Analyze the Passage Data:
According to the passage:
- The Supreme Court established that "inaction or indefinite delay is illegal and unconstitutional."
- Specifically, in the Tamil Nadu case, the Court "used its powers under Article 142 to 'deem assent' on the long-pending bills."
- This prescribed timelines and established "a critical precedent for judicial review of gubernatorial powers."
3. Evaluate the Options:
- Option 1 suggests ordering explicit rejection of bills, which contradicts the finding that pocket/absolute vetoes are unconstitutional.
- Option 2 mentions a public referendum, which is not supported or mentioned in the text.
- Option 3 correctly identifies that following the precedent means the Supreme Court could deem assent on the pending bills and exercise judicial review over gubernatorial powers, directly reflecting the passage details.
- Option 4 suggests letting the Governor re-evaluate without a set timeline, which contradicts the Court's ruling against indefinite delays.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the correct outcome following the precedent is that the Supreme Court could deem assent on the pending bills.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
