The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s decision to withhold 10 bills for President’s assent after they were re-passed by the Assembly as “illegal, erroneous in law and liable to be set aside”.
A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed that Governor Ravi illegally acted as a major “roadblock” by sitting on the 10 bills, including one since 2020. These 10 pending decisions – covering issues from university governance reforms to anti-corruption measures, public appointments, and early release of prisoners – were what the Tamil Nadu government termed a “constitutional impasse”.
This came as a major relief for the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government, which has been engaged in an intense constitutional standoff with the Governor for over a year over the issue. It had moved the Supreme Court in 2023, claiming that Governor Ravi indefinitely sat on 12 bills that the state legislature sent to him between 2020 and 2023.
Let’s look at the key takeaways from today’s ruling.
Indefinite delays unconstitutional
The Supreme Court clarified that once a bill is passed – or re-passed – by an Assembly, the Governor must act within a reasonable time. It stated that indefinite delays in doing so are unconstitutional and undermine the democratic process and effectively reduce the proposed laws, which voice the aspirations of the people, into mere pieces of paper. The court said Governors must look within themselves and reflect whether their actions were in line with the constitutional ethos and aspirations of people living in a democratic culture.
The court laid down specific timelines for Governors to decide on legislative matters – ranging from one to three months, depending on the situation – to ensure accountability and prevent legislative paralysis.
If the Governor chooses to withhold assent or reserve a bill for the President, action must be taken within one month. If the Governor acts contrary to the advice of the state by withholding assent or reserving a bill, a final decision must be taken within a maximum of three months. The court warned that any failure to comply with the timelines would invite judicial review of the Governor concerned.
Assent must for re-passed bills
If a bill is returned by the Governor and then re-passed by the Assembly, the Governor is constitutionally bound to give assent, the Supreme Court held, and added, there is no discretionary power at this stage.
Justice Pardiwala observed that “there is no concept of absolute veto or pocket veto” under the Indian constitutional framework. Absolute veto and pocket veto are two ways a President can refuse to approve a bill. An absolute veto means the President outright rejects the bill and sends it back, while a pocket veto means the President simply takes no action on the bill within a certain period, which results in the bill not becoming law, Justice Pardiwala stated.
According to Article 200 of the Constitution, the Justice observed, a Governor has three options when a bill is first passed: give assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration. However, once the State Assembly re-passes the bill, the Governor’s option to reserve them no longer remained.
Send message to assembly as soon as possible
According to the first provision of Article 200, if the Governor withholds assent, he needs to return the bill to the Assembly “as soon as possible” with a message to reconsider the proposed law or specific provisions or even suggesting amendments, the court observed. Governor Ravi had withheld consent to the 10 bills without providing any reasons as required under Article 200 of the Constitution.
President’s assent only in specific cases
The Supreme Court observed that reserving bills for consideration of the President could only be done in specific cases listed in the Constitution. These specific instances include if a proposed law was “repugnant” or inconsistent with an existing Central law or if a bill tended to derogate the Constitutional powers of the State High Court.
The Union government, on the other hand, argued that the Governor referred the bills to the President as he was concerned about the repugnancy of the state laws with Central statutes. The bench, however, noted that if such repugnancy was the reason, the Governor ought to have informed the Assembly instead of sitting on the bills. In an oral observation, the court stated that the Governor “had adopted his own procedure” in withholding assent.
The Court ruled that, as a general principle, the Governor is required to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising powers under Article 200. Once a bill is re-enacted by the State Legislature, the Governor has no discretionary authority and must give assent based on that advice. The only exception to this rule arises if the bill falls within the scope of the second proviso to Article 200 – that is, if it affects the powers of the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
