More Stories

Informist, Tuesday, Apr. 8, 2025

 

Please click here to read all liners published on this story

--CONTEXT: Tamil Nadu govt in SC against governor refusing assent to Bills 
--SC: Governor can't reserve Bill for President after re-presented by state 
--SC: Tamil Nadu governor reserving 10 bills for President's assent illegal 
--SC: Governor must give assent to bill once presented after re-consultation 
--SC sets aside Tamil Nadu governor action to reserve 10 Bills for President 
--SC gives timeline for state governors to take action on Bills 
--SC: Can judicially review exercise of state governor's discretion on bills 

 

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's action to reserve 10 Bills for President's consideration after they were re-passed by the state legislative assembly and termed the same as "illegal" and "erroneous in law". Using its power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, the top court said that all 10 Bills have come into effect as Act when it was sent to the governor. 

 

The top court said that it is not open for the governor to reserve a Bill for consideration of the President once it has been re-presented to him, after the Bill was returned to the legislature previously. After a Bill is given to him in the second round, the governor must give his assent; the only exception is when the Bill presented is different from the one given to him in the first instance, said the court.

 

The top court said that under Article 200, the governor has three options when a Bill is passed by the state legislature -- the first option is to give assent to the Bills, the second option is to withhold assent and the third one is to reserve the Bill for consideration of the President. Once the governor exercises the option of withholding assent, he is under an obligation to follow the procedure under Article 200's first proviso that says that he should return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House will reconsider the Bill.

 

Neither the concept of pocket veto nor that of absolute veto finds place within the constitutional scheme and mechanism, as envisaged under Article 200 of the Constitution, said the top court. Whenever a Bill is presented to the governor, he is under a constitutional obligation to adopt one of the three courses of action available, said the apex court. Further, "the expression as soon as possible" in the first proviso of Article 200 shows a sense of expediency and does not allow the governor to sit on the bills and exercise pocket veto over them, the apex court added.

 

The court said that there is no scope for the governor to declare a "simpliciter withholding" of assent of Bills, meaning thereby absolute veto is impermissible under Article 200. There is no expressly specified time limit for the discharge of the functions by the governor under Article 200 of the Constitution, it added. However, despite there being no prescribed time limits, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the governor to not take action upon bills which are presented to him for assent, and thereby delay and essentially roadblock the law making machinery in the state, said the apex court.

 

The top court gave timelines for the governor to take action under Article 200 and said that failure to comply with these would make the inaction of the governor subject to judicial review by the courts.

 

In case of either withholding assent or reservation of the Bill for the consideration of the President upon the aid and advice of the state's council of ministers, the governor is expected to take such action forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one month, said the top court. While withholding assent, contrary to the advice of the state's council of ministers, the governor must return the Bill together with a message within a maximum period of three months, said the apex court.

 

In case of reservation of bills for the consideration of the President, contrary to the advice of the state's council of ministers, the governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of three months, said the top court. In case of presentation of the Bill after reconsideration, the governor must grant assent forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one month, said the top court.

 

As a general rule, the governor, in exercise of his functions under Article 200, is required to abide by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers, said the top court. The only exceptions to this rule can be traced to the second proviso to Article 200, where he has to refer the Bill to the President, said the top court. 

 

Further, any exercise of discretion by the governor in exercise of his powers under Article 200 is amenable to judicial review, said the top court. The top court was in disagreement with its earlier view that the Constitution confers a discretion upon the governor insofar as the reservation of Bills for the consideration of the President is concerned.

 

The governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of his functions, and has to mandatorily abide by the advice tendered to him by the Council of Ministers. The governor, wherever he acts with discretion, he does so as the head of the state and it is held that powers used by him must stick to the limits set by the Constitution, said the court.

 

"We are not undermining the office of the governor, but the governor must be a friend, philosopher and guide and not driven by political considerations but the constitutional oath. He must be a catalyst and not an inhibitor," said the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. The governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the state legislature in order to thwart and break the will of the people for political reasons, said the top court. The members of the state legislature, having been elected by the people of the state as an outcome of the democratic expression, are better attuned to ensure the well being of the People of the State, the court added.

 

The apex court was hearing a petition by the Tamil Nadu government against the governor's refusal to assent to several Bills. The Bills related to higher education, remission of prisoners, government orders, and constitution of search committees for the appointment of vice-chancellors. The Bills grant the state government more powers in the affairs of the state and curtail the powers of the Centre. In November 2023, the Tamil Nadu governor had withheld assent to 10 Bills which had been kept pending since 2020, and sent two more to the President for consideration. Thereafter, the state legislature passed the 10 Bills again. After this, the governor sent those 10, too, to the President.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Deepshikha Bhardwaj

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd, a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2025. All rights reserved.