PrepTarget PrepTarget
Login Register Free
Menu
Mock Test →
Previous Year Papers →

The recent Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil…

CLAT 2026 · Legal Reasoning · 6 questions

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. [Extracted with edits & revisions from "The Hindu", dated 8th April 2025]

Question 1

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?
  1. A. The Governor's action is a legitimate exercise of a "pocket veto", allowing for indefinite delay of bills
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. D. The bill will automatically lapse after six months of gubernatorial inaction, making the delay a de facto rejection

Practise this question and check your answer →

Question 2

Governor Y receives a bill from the State Assembly and, after careful consideration, decides to withhold assent, promptly returning it with a message for reconsideration. The State Assembly then re-enacts the bill without any change and sends it back to Governor Y. What is the constitutional obligation of Governor Y at this point?
  1. A. Governor Y has no choice but to give assent to the re-enacted bill, as the Supreme Court has ruled that the Governor cannot withhold assent for a second time
  2. B. Governor Y can again withhold assent if they continue to disagree with the bill's content, sending it back for further reconsideration
  3. C. Governor Y can refer the bill to the President of India for a final decision, exercising a higher discretionary power
  4. D. Governor Y can dissolve the State Assembly for consistently passing erroneous bills

Practise this question and check your answer →

Question 3

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?
  1. A. The State Government must wait for a full year before any action can be taken, as gubernatorial delays are typically permitted for this duration
  2. B. The bill automatically lapses after six months of inaction, making any further action by the State Government unnecessary
  3. C. The State Government's only recourse is to re-enact the bill, which would then compel the Governor to act
  4. D. 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

Practise this question and check your answer →

Question 4

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?
  1. A. The Supreme Court would order the Governor to explicitly reject all the delayed bills
  2. B. The Supreme Court would direct the State Assembly to conduct a public referendum on each delayed bill
  3. C. 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
  4. D. The Supreme Court would advise the Governor to seek legal counsel and then re-evaluate each bill individually without a set timeline

Practise this question and check your answer →

Question 5

A newly appointed Governor publicly declares that he intend to use his discretion to permanently halt any legislation he deems inappropriate, by simply not acting on the bills, citing an inherent gubernatorial power. How does this declaration align with the constitutional interpretation provided by the Supreme Court of India?
  1. A. The Governor's declaration is consistent with the broad discretionary powers traditionally afforded to Governors, allowing them significant influence over state legislation
  2. B. The Governor's declaration is valid only for non-money bills, as money bills have different Constitutional protocols
  3. C. The Governor's declaration is partially valid, as indefinite delay is permissible only if the State Assembly is not in session
  4. D. The Governor's declaration is unconstitutional; the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Governor's power to an absolute or "pocket" veto

Practise this question and check your answer →

Question 6

What are the three primary courses of action for a Governor when a Bill is enacted by the State Assembly and sent to him/her for his/her assent. Which option correctly lists these three courses?
  1. A. (i) Give assent, (ii) Veto absolutely, or (iii) Refer to the Supreme Court
  2. B. (i) Give assent, (ii) Withhold assent (allowing the Bill to fail, unless the proviso is followed), or (iii) Recommend amendments
  3. C. (i) Give assent, (ii) Withhold assent (with the option to return for reconsideration), or (iii) Reserve for the consideration of the President
  4. D. (i) Give assent, (ii) Return for reconsideration, or (iii) Refer to the Union Government

Practise this question and check your answer →

More from this paper: all CLAT 2026 questions →