GS 2 – Polity
Background
In a significant constitutional development, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment criticising Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for delaying or denying assent to 10 bills passed by the State Legislature and re-enacted after initial withholding. The Governor’s move to reserve these bills for Presidential consideration was deemed unconstitutional by the Court.
Case Overview
- In 2023, the Tamil Nadu Government approached the Supreme Court, raising concerns over deliberate inaction by the Governor.
- A total of 12 bills, including one pending since 2020, awaited gubernatorial assent.
- On 13 November 2023, the Governor withheld assent to 10 bills.
- The Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed these bills on 18 November 2023.
- On 28 November 2023, the Governor once again reserved some of these bills for the President’s consideration, prompting judicial scrutiny.
Constitutional Provisions Involved
- Article 200: Empowers the Governor to either:
- Grant assent to a bill,
- Withhold assent, or
- Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration.
- Article 201: Grants the President authority over bills reserved by the Governor.
- Article 142: Provides the Supreme Court with broad powers to ensure complete justice in any matter before it.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
- The Court found the Governor’s action of reserving bills for the President without constitutional justification as arbitrary and illegal.
- Once a bill is re-passed by the Assembly, it is deemed to have received assent from the date of its re-submission to the Governor.
- Under Article 200, the Governor must act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers; discretionary powers are not absolute.
- Indefinite delays or “pocket vetoes” by the Governor undermine the democratic process and disrupt the federal structure.
- Legislative paralysis due to executive inaction violates the essence of representative democracy.
Supreme Court-Imposed Timelines
| Scenario | Time Limit |
| Assent Withheld or Reserved (with CoM advice) | Within 1 Month |
| Assent Withheld (without CoM advice) | Bill must be returned in 3 Months |
| Bill Re-passed by State Legislature | Governor must give assent within 1 Month |
Judicial Accountability
- If the Governor fails to comply with these timeframes, Judicial Review will be applicable.
- Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court directed that such bills be treated as having received assent by default, reinforcing its power to ensure justice.
Reinforcing Democratic Values
- The Governor is not an obstructionist authority; they must uphold the spirit of parliamentary democracy.
- As a constitutional functionary, the Governor must work in harmony with elected governments and facilitate the law-making process.
- The role of the Governor should remain non-political—as a guide, philosopher, and facilitator, not as a hurdle to governance.
Clarification on Reserve Power under Article 200
- When the State Legislature re-enacts a bill, the Governor cannot reserve it again for Presidential assent, unless there is a material alteration in its content.
- Any attempt to delay or stall legislation post re-enactment is seen as a breach of the constitutional oath of office.