By Vikram Kilpady
The Supreme Court has overruled the central government many times. But in a landmark decision, the first in fact, it now has set a time limit for the President to assent to a bill reserved for her/his assent by the Governor.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan gave this verdict in the Tamil Nadu vs Governor RN Ravi case where the Governor had delayed assent to ten bills and reserved it for the President.
While laying timelines for Governors to act, it said the President must act on bills reserved by the governor for presidential assent within three months from the date of reference. This is important since it sets time limits not envisioned in Article 201 which doesn’t set such a deadline for the President. The reason for any delays beyond this limit must be recorded and conveyed to the state government.
The apex court said the state government can then approach the courts, noting the courts would not be powerless to intervene when a constitutional authority is not exercising function within a reasonable time.
The Court said the governor’s act of reserving these bills for the President’s assent after they were passed a second time by the state assembly was “illegal and erroneous” and liable to be set aside. It further clarified that any action taken by the President on these bills would be legally invalid. The Court unequivocally stated that once bills are presented to the Governor for the second time after the state assembly’s clearance, they are automatically considered to have received assent.
Sharply criticizing Governor Ravi’s conduct, the bench underlined that his actions lacked “bona fide” intent and that he had unduly delayed clearing the bills before forwarding them to the President. This reservation occurred after a previous Supreme Court order in the Punjab case, which clarified that Governors cannot effectively veto bills through prolonged delays in granting assent.
Justice Pardiwala explicitly stated that the Constitution does not grant Governors any “absolute veto or pocket veto”. He clarified that after a bill is passed by the state assembly for a second time, the Governor is constitutionally bound to follow one of three paths: grant assent, withhold assent (only upon initial examination), or reserve the bill for the President (again, only during the first instance). Referring a bill to the President after refusing assent and a significant delay is not permissible.
The judge further elaborated that a bill should only be presented for a second time if the revised version differs from the original. If a Governor withholds assent initially, Article 200’s first proviso mandates that the bill must be returned to the state assembly for reconsideration, after which the Governor is obligated to grant assent.
Left with “no choice” due to the prolonged inaction, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to declare the ten pending Tamil Nadu bills as having received the Governor’s deemed assent. The bench noted the Governor’s apparent disregard for the Court’s earlier ruling in the Punjab case and alluded to “other extraneous considerations that appear to be writ large in discharge of his functions.”
While emphasizing that it was not undermining the office of the Governor, the bench asserted that, with due respect to parliamentary democracy, the Governor must respect the will of the legislature and the people who elected it and the state government.
In a powerful statement, the Court said: “(The Governor) must perform his role of a friend, a philosopher and guide with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the Constitutional oath he undertook. In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the state machinery by his sagacity and wisdom, and not bring it to a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not the inhibitor.
All his actions must be taken keeping in mind the high constitutional office he occupies. It is imperative that all his actions must be guided by true allegiance to his oath and he faithfully executes his functions. The Governor as the constitutional head of the state is obliged to accord primacy to the will and welfare of the people of the state and earnestly work in harmony with the state machinery.”
The bench further cautioned that the Governor must not be perceived as creating “roadblocks or chokeholding the State legislature to thwart and break the will of the people for political ends,” adding that any action against the declared choice of the people would be a “reneging on his constitutional oath.”
For emphasis, the Court added: “Constitutional authorities occupying high offices must be guided by the values of the Constitution. These values that are so cherished by the people of India are a result of years of struggles and sacrifices by our forefathers. When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give into ephemeral political considerations, but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution. They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by the Constitutional oath and the course of actions adopted by them furthers the ideals of the Constitution.”
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin hailed the verdict as a “historic judgment” and a “landmark victory” in the state & 39’s fight for federalism, thanking the Supreme Court for “reaffirming the legislative rights of State Legislatures”. He expressed hope that this would put an end to the trend of
Governors in Opposition-ruled states stalling progressive legislation. The chief ministers of Karnataka and Kerala also voiced their support for the Supreme Court’s decision.
Timelines For Gubernatorial Action
Recognizing the critical role of Article 200 in upholding federalism, the Supreme Court laid down the following strict timelines for Governors to act on bills, warning that non-compliance would be subject to judicial review:
(a) Withholding assent or reserving a Bill for the President’s consideration upon the advice of the state & 39’s cabinet: Expected to act within one month.
(b) Withholding assent against the advice of the state government: Must return the Bill with a message within three months.
(c) Reserving a bill for the President against the advice of the state government: Should reserve it within three months, President must clear it within three months or give reasons.
(d) Bill passed a second time by the Assembly after being sent back: The Governor must clear it within a month.
The bench emphatically stated that Governors are bound by the state government’s advice when exercising their powers under Article 200, explicitly ruling out any discretionary power except in the case of bills affecting the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court.