LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 481Decided 8 Apr 2025
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1239 of 2023
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

The Tamil Nadu Legislature passed a number of Bills between 2020 and 2023, but the Governor of Tamil Nadu sat on them without taking any action for years. After the State filed this writ petition, the Governor withheld assent to 10 Bills and reserved 2 others for the President's consideration. The State Legislature then re-passed the 10 Bills unchanged and sent them back for assent under the Constitution's procedure (the first proviso to Article 200), but instead of assenting, the Governor this time reserved all 10 re-passed Bills for the President's consideration, citing alleged conflicts with central laws. The President later withheld assent to several of these Bills. The State argued this entire sequence of delay and reservation was unconstitutional and asked the Supreme Court to declare the Bills validly assented to.

Decision Breakdown

In a lengthy, landmark judgment (414 pages), the Supreme Court held that once a Bill is returned by the Governor under the first proviso to Article 200 and is re-passed by the State Legislature without change, the Governor has no further discretion. He cannot reserve it for the President a second time and must grant assent. The Court traced the constitutional history of Article 200 in detail and held that the Governor, as a rule, must act on the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, with narrow discretionary exceptions; it also fixed a three-month outer limit for the President to decide on Bills reserved for consideration, and held that unreasoned or unduly delayed withholding of assent by either the Governor or the President is subject to judicial review. Because the Governor's second reservation of the 10 re-passed Bills was found unconstitutional and the President's resulting action on them was therefore void, the Court used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to declare all 10 Bills deemed to have received assent on the date they were re-presented to the Governor (18 November 2023).

Lesson Learnt

Constitutional office-holders like Governors and the President do not have unlimited or indefinite discretion to sit on or repeatedly block laws passed by an elected legislature: the Constitution expects them to act within a reasonable time and largely in line with ministerial advice, and courts can step in and even deem a Bill "assented to" when that constitutional process is deliberately obstructed.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case