In a landmark ruling delivered on April 8, the Supreme Court of India struck down the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's action of reserving 10 re-enacted bills for the President’s consideration. The apex court declared this move illegal, erroneous, and lacking bona fides, marking a significant moment in the interpretation of Article 200 of the Indian Constitution.
The two-judge bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan categorically stated that the Governor's act of withholding assent and later referring the bills to the President—despite them being re-passed by the Tamil Nadu State Assembly—was contrary to constitutional procedures. The judgment emphasized that these bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent when they were re-enacted and presented for a second time.
"We declare that the withholding of assent or reservation of bills for the consideration of the President on 28.11.2023, after their reconsideration by the State legislature, is erroneous in law, non-est and therefore hereby set aside," Justice Pardiwala read from the ruling.
The Court made it abundantly clear that the Indian Constitution does not recognize the idea of a "pocket veto" or "absolute veto" by the Governor. As per Article 200, the Governor has only three routes when presented with a bill:
- Grant assent
- Withhold assent
- Reserve it for the President
However, the reservation to the President can be done only at the first instance. The judgment underlined that once the Governor decides to withhold assent, the bill must be sent back to the State Assembly for reconsideration. This procedure cannot be bypassed.
“As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve a Bill for the President after the bills have been re-presented by the Government after being passed again by the Assembly,” Justice Pardiwala noted.
During the hearing, the Attorney General argued that since the Governor had already withheld assent, the Assembly should not have re-enacted the bills. However, the Court rejected this line of reasoning, stating that once assent is withheld, the Governor is obligated to return the bills to the Assembly with a message. The failure to do so made the subsequent reservation to the President invalid.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Questions Tamil Nadu Government Over Supreme Court Move in ED-TASMAC Case
To prevent future constitutional deadlocks, the Court prescribed clear timelines for the Governor’s decisions under Article 200:
Withholding Assent or Reserving Bills with Council of Ministers’ Advice: Must act immediately or within 1 month.
Withholding Assent Against the Council’s Advice: Must return the bill with a message within 3 months.
Reservation of Bills Against Council’s Advice: Reservation must be made within 3 months.
Reservation After Reconsideration by Assembly: The Governor must grant assent within 1 month.
“Failure to comply with the timelines will make the action of the Governor subject to judicial review,” the Court stated.
The Court reaffirmed that the Governor must act based on the aid and advice of the State’s Council of Ministers while using powers under Article 200. The only exception applies to bills affecting the powers of the High Courts or the Supreme Court.
“The Governor does not possess any discretion once the bills have been re-enacted,” said the bench.
Given the delay of over three years and disregard for constitutional procedures, the Court invoked Article 142 to declare that the 10 re-enacted bills would be deemed to have received assent. The judges criticized the Governor’s conduct as politically motivated and inconsistent with the duties of a constitutional head.
“Having regard to the unduly long period of time for which these bills were kept pending by the Governor… we are left with no choice but to exercise our inherent powers under Article 142,” Justice Pardiwala declared.
In a powerful message, the Court reminded Governors of their constitutional duty to facilitate, not obstruct, governance.
“The Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people expressed through the legislature… He must be the catalyst, not the inhibitor.”
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Orders Inspection of 49 BBMP Schools to Assess Infrastructure and Student Facilities
The bench added that high constitutional offices must be occupied with integrity and guided by the values and struggles that shaped the Indian Constitution.
“The Governor must be conscious not to create roadblocks to thwart the will of the people. Such actions would be a betrayal of the Constitutional oath.”
Justice Pardiwala concluded the ruling with a profound quote by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
“However good a constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.”
Background of the Case
The decision stemmed from writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against Governor RN Ravi. The bills, some of which had been pending since January 2020, were re-enacted in a special legislative session. However, the Governor reserved them for the President, prompting legal action.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P. Wilson represented the State, while Attorney General R. Venkataramani appeared for the Governor.
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
