In a landmark judgment on Monday, the Supreme Court held that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 state bills and reserve them for the President was “illegal, erroneous” and lacking in bona fides. The Court declared the move a violation of the constitutional scheme under Article 200 and deemed the bills to have received the Governor’s assent upon their re-enactment by the State Legislature.
The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that the Governor had no authority to reserve the bills for the President after the Assembly passed them again. The Court strongly stated that there is no concept of an “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” in India’s constitutional framework, rebuking the prolonged delay by the Governor as constitutionally impermissible.
Setting a precedent, the Supreme Court laid down clear timelines for Governor’s actions on bills:
-
Withholding assent or reservation must be done within 1 month under advice of the state government.
-
If contrary to the state government’s advice, the bill must be returned within 3 months.
-
Re-enacted bills must receive assent within 1 month.
The Court also nullified any consequential steps taken by the President on these bills, asserting that they hold no legal standing. The verdict emphasized that the Governor must act based on the aid and advice of the State Cabinet, except where the bills impact High Court or Supreme Court powers.
Justice Pardiwala, authoring the judgment, concluded by reminding all constitutional authorities to act in alignment with democratic principles. He stressed the Governor’s duty to respect the will of the people as expressed through the elected legislature.
The Court invoked Article 142 to ensure that justice was delivered and constitutional order preserved, reinforcing that Governors must not act as roadblocks or override the democratic will of the State Assembly.
