In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court set a clear timeline for Governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures, criticizing Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for reserving 10 bills for the President’s consideration—an action it declared unconstitutional.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled, “The Governor’s decision to reserve the 10 bills for the President was arbitrary and illegal, and is therefore set aside.”
The court clarified that the 10 bills in question would be deemed to have received assent from the date they were re-submitted to the Governor.
In an unprecedented move, the apex court established specific timelines for Governors to respond to bills under Article 200 of the Constitution, which previously did not stipulate any deadlines. The court emphasized that this constitutional provision could not be interpreted as granting Governors unlimited time to act, thereby allowing them to stall the legislative process.
According to the court’s directives:
- If the Governor, with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, chooses to reserve a bill for the President, the decision must be made within one month.
- If the Governor intends to withhold assent without ministerial advice, the bill must be returned to the Assembly within three months.
- If a bill is re-submitted after being reconsidered by the Assembly, the Governor must grant assent within one month.
The bench warned that any failure to comply with these timelines would open the Governor’s inaction to judicial scrutiny.
Invoking its plenary powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court declared that the re-submitted bills in Tamil Nadu should be considered as having received assent. It also stressed that a Governor should not create “roadblocks or chokeholds” in the legislative process, thereby obstructing the will of the people.
“Members of the state legislature, elected by the people, are better positioned to safeguard their welfare,” the bench noted.
Reiterating that Article 200 does not grant Governors discretionary power, the court asserted that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The concept of a “pocket veto,” where the Governor takes no action on a bill, was firmly rejected.
