Context:
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declared that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s refusal to grant assent to 10 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature was illegal and erroneous. The Court emphasized the significance of cooperative federalism and addressed concerns regarding the increasing politicisation of the Governor’s office, particularly in Opposition-ruled states.
The Process of Granting Assent
Under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, the Governor has four options when a Bill, passed by the State Legislature, is presented for assent:
- Grant assent
- Withhold assent
- Return the Bill to the State Assembly for reconsideration
- Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration (only in cases that threaten the functioning of the judiciary or undermine constitutional provisions)
However, Money Bills are automatically deemed to have received assent.
Governor’s Discretion and ‘Pocket Veto’
The Court dealt with the issue of the ‘pocket veto’, where the Governor indefinitely delays a decision on a Bill without formally returning it. The Court clarified that Article 200 precludes any such tactic. The term “shall” in the Article, coupled with the phrase “as soon as possible”, indicates that the Governor must act promptly and cannot delay the decision indefinitely.
- No unqualified veto: The Governor cannot simply reject a Bill passed by the State Legislature. Delays must be reasonable, and the Governor is constitutionally obliged to grant assent if the Bill is re-passed after reconsideration by the Legislature.
President’s Consideration
- Reservation for the President:
- The Court ruled that the Governor cannot reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration after it has been returned to the Legislature and reconsidered. Reservation is only allowed if the Bill has changed significantly during reconsideration.
- Limitations:
- The Governor cannot reserve Bills based on personal dissatisfaction or political considerations. It must be done in situations where there is a grave threat to democratic principles.
- Three-Month Deadline:
- The Court set a three-month deadline for the President to decide whether to assent to Bills referred by the Governor. Delays beyond this period must be justified.
Prescribed Timelines
To prevent obstruction of the legislative process, the Court established strict timelines for both the Governor and the President:
- Governor’s Action:
- If withholding assent or reserving a Bill, it must be done immediately and no later than one month.
- If a Bill is returned to the Assembly after withholding assent, the Governor must return it within three months with a clear explanation for the decision.
- If a Bill is re-passed by the Assembly, the Governor must grant assent within one month.
- President’s Decision: The President must decide on the Bill within three months of receiving it, with delays requiring justifiable reasons.
Judicial Review and the Deemed Assent
The Court emphasized that the Governor’s discretion must be open to judicial review to prevent the disregard of the will of the elected legislature. In this case, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to deem the 10 pending Bills as having received assent, given the Governor’s disrespect for earlier rulings.
Implications of the Judgment
- Strengthening Federalism:
- The ruling upholds the principles of cooperative federalism and ensures that State governments can pass legislation without undue delays by Governors.
- Clear Constitutional Remedy:
- It provides Opposition-ruled states with a clear remedy for delays in granting assent, ensuring the smooth functioning of state legislatures.
- Preventing Abuse of Power:
- The ruling ensures that the Governor’s power to withhold assent is not misused for political purposes. By instituting timelines and recognizing deemed assent, the Court prevents the politicisation of the Governor’s office.
- Broader Impact:
- This judgment could serve as a precedent for judicial intervention in other areas, such as delays in judicial appointments or actions by the Union government on the collegium’s recommendations.
