The judgment of the Supreme Court of India in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. is a defining pronouncement on the powers of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, and the decision of 8 April 2025 must now be read with the advisory opinion of the Constitution Bench in In re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, delivered on 20 November 2025. The dispute arose when the Governor of Tamil Nadu kept twelve Bills pending for nearly three years after their passage by the State Legislature. He then withheld assent without returning the Bills with a message, as the first proviso to Article 200 requires. When the Bills were re-enacted without material change, he reserved them for the President instead of granting assent. The Court had to determine the scope of the Governor’s powers under Article 200, whether he possesses independent discretion in discharging that function, whether prolonged inaction attracts judicially enforceable timelines, and the extent to which such action is amenable to judicial review. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that Article 200 sanctions neither a pocket veto nor an absolute veto, and that a Governor who withholds assent must return the Bill to the Legislature with a message. It further held that the Governor is ordinarily bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, prescribed outer timelines under Articles 200 and 201, barred the reservation of a re-passed Bill, and deemed the ten Bills assented to under Article 142. The Constitution Bench has since disapproved each of those four propositions. This comment analyses the facts, the legal issues, the submissions of the parties, the Court’s reasoning, and its standing after the Reference.