In a landmark ruling interpreting Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that a Governor has no authority to reserve a Bill for the President’s assent once it has been re-enacted by the State Legislative Assembly after initially withholding assent.
The Constitution Bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, stated that if the Governor wants to reserve a Bill for the President, it must be done when the Bill is first presented. Once the Governor chooses to withhold assent, the Constitution mandates that the Bill must be returned to the Assembly. If the Assembly re-enacts the same Bill, the Governor is constitutionally bound to give assent and cannot reserve it for the President.
"As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President once it was presented before him in the second round," the Court stated in the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala.
This decision came in response to the Tamil Nadu Governor's move to reserve 10 re-enacted Bills for the President’s consideration, which the Court held to be illegal and unconstitutional.
The Court found that the Governor failed to act in a bona fide manner on two counts:
Withheld assent without explanation – The Governor did not provide any reasons to the State Assembly for withholding assent on the Bills.
Delayed communication after Supreme Court’s prior ruling – Shortly after the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Punjab Governor case, which emphasized that a Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent, the Tamil Nadu Governor suddenly reserved the Bills for the President.
"The Bills having been pending before the Governor for an unduly long period of time and the Governor having acted not bona fide in reserving the Bill for the consideration of the President immediately after the pronouncement of the decision by this Court in the State of Punjab are deemed to have been assented by the Governor on the date it was presented to him after reconsideration," the Court stated.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Governors Must Respect People's Mandate, Not Obstruct Elected Governments
The Court overruled the earlier B.K. Pavithra judgment, which suggested that the Governor retains discretion under Article 200 to reserve Bills for the President even after re-enactment.
"We say so because of the removal of the expression 'in his discretion' from Section 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935 when it was being adopted as Article 200 of the Constitution," the judgment noted.
This, the Court held, indicates that any discretionary power that existed under the 1935 Act was not carried forward into the Constitution.
"It also manifests that the decision in B.K. Pavithra is not in consonance with the observations made by the larger bench decision of this Court in Shamsher Singh," the Court added.
The judgment clarified that the only situation where the Governor can reserve a re-enacted Bill for Presidential assent is when the second version of the Bill is substantially different from the first. In such cases, the Governor may:
- Grant assent,
- Withhold assent, or
- Reserve it for the President.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Bars Pocket Veto: Sets Clear Timelines for Governors on Bills Under Article 200
However, in this case, since the Bills were re-enacted without change, the Governor had no constitutional basis to reserve them.
The Supreme Court emphasized that withholding assent is not a standalone power. It must be read in conjunction with the first proviso to Article 200, which requires the Governor to return the Bill to the Legislature with suggested modifications.
"The first proviso to Article 200 must be read in conjunction with the option of withholding assent provided in the substantive part of Article 200. It is not an independent course of action and has to be mandatorily initiated by the Governor in cases where the option of withholding the assent is to be exercised," the Court observed.
The judgment also referred to the decision in Valluri Basavaiah Chaudhary, clarifying that once a Governor returns a Bill, it will not survive unless re-enacted by the Legislature following the Governor's suggestions.
Case Details: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU AND ANR| W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023 & THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND ORS| W.P.(C) No. 1271/2023
