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]
After the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), a State Governor holds a bill for eight months without taking any action—neither assenting nor returning it. The State Government believes that this delay is unconstitutional. Based on the precedent set by the judgment, what recourse is available to the State Government?
Correct Answer :
The State Government can approach the courts, as the judgment had prescribed timelines for the Governor’s actions on bills since indefinite delay was construed unconstitutional
Solution :
Correct Answer: The State Government can approach the courts, as the judgment had prescribed timelines for the Governor’s actions on bills since indefinite delay was construed unconstitutional
Step-by-Step Explanation:
Step 1: Analyze the question scenario
The problem asks for the legal recourse available to a State Government when a State Governor holds a bill for eight months without taking any action (neither assenting nor returning it), following the Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025).
Step 2: Refer to the provided passage for key legal holdings
According to the passage:
1. The Supreme Court held that "inaction or indefinite delay is illegal and unconstitutional."
2. 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."
Step 3: Evaluate the options based on the precedent
- Holding a bill for eight months constitutes an indefinite delay or inaction, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.
- Since the judgment expanded the scope of judicial review and established timelines for gubernatorial decisions, the State Government has the right to approach the courts when these timelines are breached due to inaction.
Thus, the correct recourse is that the State Government can approach the courts.
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.
