Question Details

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]


The Legislative Assembly of State X passes a controversial bill and sends it to the Governor for assent. The Governor, strongly disagreeing with the bill’s provisions, decides to neither give assent nor return the bill, hoping it will be forgotten over the time. Which of the following statements accurately describes the legal position of the Governor’s action?

Options

A

The Governor’s action is a legitimate exercise of a ”pocket veto”, allowing for indefinite delay of bills

B

The Governor’s inaction is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the power to an absolute or ”pocket” veto, and they are obligated to return the bill ”as soon as possible” if assent is withheld

C

The Governor is within their rights to delay the bill indefinitely as long as they do not explicitly reject it, reflecting the true spirit of gubernatorial discretion

D

The bill will automatically lapse after six months of gubernatorial inaction, making the delay a de facto rejection

Show Answer

Correct Answer :

Option B

The Governor’s inaction is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the power to an absolute or ”pocket” veto, and they are obligated to return the bill ”as soon as possible” if assent is withheld

Solution :

The correct answer is: The Governor’s inaction is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the power to an absolute or ”pocket” veto, and they are obligated to return the bill ”as soon as possible” if assent is withheld.


Step-by-Step Explanation:


1. Analyze the Scenario:
The Legislative Assembly of State X passed a bill and sent it to the Governor. The Governor decided to neither give assent nor return the bill, delaying it indefinitely in hopes that it would be forgotten.


2. Evaluate Legal/Constitutional Provisions based on the Passage:
According to the provided passage summarizing State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025):
- The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Governor's power to exercise an absolute or "pocket" veto.
- Indefinitely delaying or remaining silent on bills is unconstitutional and illegal.
- If assent is withheld, the Governor is constitutionally obligated under Article 200 to return the bill to the State Assembly "as soon as possible" for reconsideration.


3. Conclusion:
Therefore, the Governor's inaction is unconstitutional, as Governors must act "as soon as possible" and cannot hold bills indefinitely.

Unlock Our Free Library

Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.

Discover more resources

You may also like

Mock Tests

View All
  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, english, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

Ask AI Tutor
5 left
Q1 View Question & Options
AI Tutor is solving this question...
Reading question context & options...