In a historic ruling on April 8, the Supreme Court of India put an end to the practice of indefinite delay by Governors in acting on state legislature bills. The Court declared that the Constitution does not allow the Governor to keep bills pending endlessly—a practice often referred to as a "pocket veto."
This decision came in response to the actions of Tamil Nadu Governor Dr. R.N. Ravi, who held back ten bills passed by the state legislature for several months. These bills were later reserved for the President's consideration, despite being re-enacted by the Assembly. The Supreme Court found this conduct legally wrong and inconsistent with constitutional principles.
“The Constitution does not permit the Governor to exercise pocket veto or absolute veto by sitting indefinitely on bills,” the Court firmly stated.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment. While noting that Article 200 does not prescribe a specific time limit for the Governor to act, the Court emphasized that the phrase “as soon as possible” in the first proviso to Article 200 implies a duty to act swiftly and not delay decisions.
Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment, made key observations about the misuse of Article 200:
“Neither the concept of pocket veto nor absolute veto find a place within the constitutional scheme. The words ‘shall declare’ in Article 200 indicate that the Governor cannot remain inactive. Once a Bill is presented, the Governor must act—either grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President.”
The Court further explained that the use of “as soon as possible” signifies urgency and disallows prolonged delays. It also noted that the first proviso to Article 200, which deals with withholding assent, does not allow for an absolute veto. According to the Court, the Article is designed for “movement of a bill from one constitutional authority to another, with a sense of expediency.”
Citing earlier cases like the Perarivalan judgment, the Court emphasized that when no time limit is mentioned for constitutional action, such action must be completed within a reasonable period. Setting timelines, the Court noted, is not the same as amending the Constitution—it is a step to ensure accountability and prevent misuse of power.
“Prescribing a general time limit for Article 200 decisions is to create a judicial standard for what constitutes reasonable action. It does not alter the Constitution but ensures fair exercise of power,” the judgment clarified.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Governors Must Respect People's Mandate, Not Obstruct Elected Governments
The Supreme Court laid out specific deadlines for Governors to act on bills:
- If the Governor is to withhold assent or reserve the Bill for the President based on the State Council of Ministers’ advice, such action must be taken immediately, but not later than one month.
- If the Governor withholds assent contrary to the State Council of Ministers’ advice, the Bill must be returned with a message within a maximum of three months.
- If the Governor reserves the Bill for the President against the Council’s advice, the reservation must be made within three months.
- If the Bill has been re-enacted after being returned once, the Governor must grant assent within one month of its re-submission.
“These timelines ensure that the Governor’s constitutional role is not misused to delay democratic processes. Non-compliance will attract judicial review,” the Court asserted.
The Court also reaffirmed the constitutional principle that the Governor should usually act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, as mandated under Articles 200 and 163. It pointed out that the colonial-era phrase “in his discretion,” which appeared in the Government of India Act, 1935, was deliberately omitted in the Indian Constitution.
“Only when the Constitution itself mandates the Governor to act at his discretion can he bypass the advice of the Council. Even then, such discretion is open to judicial review,” the Court observed.
