Context:
The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment reprimanding Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for withholding assent or delaying action on 10 state bills re-passed by the state legislature. The Court held that the Governor’s act of reserving these bills for the President’s consideration was unconstitutional.
Key Constitutional Provisions:
- Article 200: Governor’s powers on assent – assent, withhold, or reserve for President.
- Article 201: President’s veto on reserved bills.
- Article 142: SC’s plenary power to ensure complete justice.
Supreme Court’s Observations:
- Governor’s reservation of 10 bills was illegal and arbitrary.
- Bills re-presented are deemed assented from date of re-presentation.
- Governor has no discretion under Article 200; must act on aid & advice of Council of Ministers.
- No “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” possible.
- Delays violate federalism and democracy.
Timelines Fixed by SC (First Time Ever):
| Scenario | Maximum Time Allowed |
|---|---|
| Withhold assent or reserve for President (with CoM’s advice) | 1 Month |
| Withhold assent without CoM’s advice (returning bill) | 3 Months |
| Bill re-passed by Assembly (2nd time) | 1 Month |
Judicial Oversight:
- Non-compliance with timelines makes Governor’s inaction subject to Judicial Review.
- SC invoked Article 142 to declare the bills as deemed assented.
Reaffirmation of Democratic Principles:
- Governor cannot act as an obstructionist.
- Elected legislators are the true representatives of the people.
- Governor must act as a facilitator, not a political actor.
- Must act as a friend, philosopher, and guide.
Clarification on Reserve Power:
- Once re-passed, Governor cannot again reserve bill for President unless content is materially altered.
- Any delay beyond this violates constitutional oath.
