Supreme Court Sets Aside TN Governor's Decision To Reserve 10 Bills For President's Assent; Says He Acted Without Bona Fides
8 Apr 2025 10:58 AM
The Supreme Court today (April 8) held that the action of the Tamil Nadu Governor Dr RN Ravi withholding assent for 10 bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020, and reserving them to the President after they were re-enacted by the State Legislature is "illegal and erroneous" in law and liable to be set aside.
Any consequential steps which might have been taken by the President on the said ten bills were also declared non-est in law.
The Court declared that the ten Bills would be deemed to have received the assent of the Governor when they were presented in the second round after they were passed again by the State Assembly.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor did not act with bona fides, as the bills were sent to the President, after the Governor himself sat over them over a long time, and were reserved for the President soon after the Supreme Court's judgment in the Punjab Governor's case, which held that the Governors cannot veto the bills by sitting over them.
No pocket veto or absolute veto on bills
The judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala held that there is no concept of "absolute veto" or "pocket veto" under the Constitutional scheme. As per Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor is expected to take one of the three courses of action on bills - grant assent to bills, withhold assent to bills or reserve the bills for the President. The Court held that the Bill can be reserved for the President only at the first instance.
"As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve a Bill for the President after the bills have been re-presented by the Government after being passed again by the Assembly. The only exception is when the bill presented in the second round is different from the first version," Justice Pardiwala read out from the judgment.
If the Governor withholds assent to the bill, then they must be sent to the Assembly
The Court also held that the option under first proviso to Article 200 is not an independent option, and that this must be exercised in conjunction with the power in the substantive clause of Article 200. This means that once the Governor declares that he was withholding assent to the bills, then he must send back the bills to the assembly for reconsideration. In this case, the Attorney General had argued that when the Governor declared that he was withholding assent, he did not send them to the Assembly, and hence it was not open for the Assembly to re-enact them. This argument was rejected.
Timelines laid down
"Keeping in mind the constitutional significance of Article 200 and the role it plays in the federal polity of the country, the following timelines are being prescribed. Failure to comply with the timelines will make the action of the Governor subject to judicial review," the Court observed.
1. In case of withholding assent or reservation of the Bill for consideration of the President upon aid and advice of the State's Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such actions forthwith subject to a maximum period of 1 month.
2. In case of 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 3 months.
3. In case of reservation of Bills for consideration of the President, contrary to advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of 3 months or
4. In case of reservation of Bills after reconsideration in accordance with the first proviso, the Governor must grant assent forthwith subject to a maximum period of 1 month (This means that bills re-enacted by the Assembly after they were sent back by the Governor, must be assented by the Governor in the second round within one month)
Governor has to act as per the aid and advice of the State Government
The Court held that as a general rule, the Governor has to act as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising powers under Article 200. The Governor does not possess any discretion and has to mandatorily act on aid and advice once the bills have been re-enacted.
The only exception is when the Bills fall under the description of the second proviso to Article 200 (bills affecting the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court).
Conclusions
Justice Pardiwala read out the following conclsuions :
1. The withholding of assent or the reservation of bills for the consideration of the President on 28.11.2023, after their due re-consideration by the State legislature, being in contravention of the procedure prescribed under Article 200, is declared erroneous in law, non-est and thus hereby set aside.
2. As a result of the above finding, any consequential steps that might have been taken by the President on these ten bills is equally non-est and hereby set aside.
3. Having regard to the unduly long period of time for which these bills were kept pending by the Governor, before the ultimate declaration of withholding of assent, and in view of the scant respect shown by the Governor to the decision of this Court in The State of Punjab, and for the other extraneous considerations that appear to be writ large in discharge of his functions, we are left with no choice but to exercise our inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare these ten bills to have been deemed to have got assented.
Governors must not create roadblocks, must respect the will of the people
In the judgment, the Court reminded the Governors of their roles and duties, by observing :
"We are not undermining the office of the Governor. All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of the Parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people. He 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 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 ends. The members of the State legislature have been elected by the people of the State as a result of the democratic outcome are better attuned to ensure the well-being of the people. Hence, any expression contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the State legislature, would be a renege on the Constitutional oath."
"The 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. "
Justice Pardiwala ended the judgment by quoting BR Ambedkar, "however good a constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad"
Live updates from the pronouncement can be read here.
On February 10, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan reserved judgment on the writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against its Governor Dr RN Ravi withholding assent for the bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020. Once the Bills were re-enacted in a special session by the Government, the Governor sent some of the re-passed laws to the President for reconsideration.
Various constitutional issues concerning the interpretation of Article 200 and factual questions have emerged from the four days of the hearing. The bench formulated eight questions for the parties during the hearing.
To briefly summarise, the petitioners have argued that the action of the Governor sitting over the Bills for 3 years and then one fine day, declaring that he is withholding assent and when the Bills are passed again, reserving it to the President are violative of Article 200. Therefore, the Governor's declaration is held to be void.
As per the petitioners' arguments, the Governor has three options under Article 200 when the Bill is sent to him: assent, reserve for reconsideration of the President and withhold the assent. The State argued that if the Governor reserves it for the President's reconsideration, he has to do so at the first instance. However, if he does not exercise that, the next recourse is to send the Bill to the State legislature. Here, it was argued that as per the Punjab Governor's decision(which was pronounced at a time when the Tamil Nadu Governor decided to send the re-enacted Bills to the President), if the Governor was withholding the assent, then he should return the bills to the assembly.
Whereas, the Respondent submitted that what troubled the Governor was repugnancy with the central laws and nothing else and therefore, in the national interest, he sent it to the President. During the proceedings, the Court had orally remarked that the Governor had adopted his own procedure on withholding assent. The Court had also questioned on the submission of Attorney General, R. Venkataramani, that the Governor found the Bills to be repugnant. It was argued that the Governor by withholding the assent communicated the repugnancy but not for the State legislature to re-enact the Bills subsequent to which it was sent to the President.
The Court asked if the Governor had found the Bills repugnant, why did he continue to withhold them without informing the Legislative Assembly.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, P Wilson appeared for the State. Attorney General R Venktaramani appeared for the Governor.
Case Details: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU AND ANR| W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023 & THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND ORS| W.P.(C) No. 1271/2023
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
