New Delhi, April 10: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to deem 10 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly as having received the Governor’s assent. The Court ruled that Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged delay in processing these Bills was both unconstitutional and unjustified.
The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, comes in response to a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government in 2023. The state alleged that the Governor had deliberately stalled action on key legislation, some of which had been pending for over three years. The verdict marks a significant assertion of judicial authority over what the Court termed a “high constitutional impasse.”
Governor’s Conduct Criticized
Justice Pardiwala, delivering the judgment, began with sharp commentary on the situation, stating that instead of the Governor acting as a wise and neutral advisor “someone who can pour oil over troubled waters” the Court was instead forced to intervene in a prolonged power struggle between the state and the Governor.
The bench unanimously held that the Governor’s actions violated constitutional norms. The Court reaffirmed that under Article 200, the Governor has three options upon receiving a Bill from the legislature: grant assent, withhold assent, or refer it to the President. Crucially, once a Bill is returned to the Assembly, and passed again either with or without amendments the Governor is duty-bound to give assent. He cannot send it to the President at that stage.
The Court ruled that Governor Ravi’s move to reserve re-enacted Bills for Presidential consideration was legally unsustainable and invalid.
Reaffirming Limits on Gubernatorial Power
Drawing from previous rulings, including the 2023 State of Punjab case, Justice Pardiwala reiterated that a Governor cannot override the legislative process by indefinitely delaying assent or exercising a de facto veto. The Constitution does not allow for an “absolute veto” or a “pocket veto,” the Court said.
“The Governor’s conduct in this case showed scant regard for settled legal principles,” the Court noted. It added that the delays were not made in good faith and amounted to violating constitutional duties.
Supreme Court Enforces Bills Using Article 142
Taking an unprecedented step, the bench declared that the 10 Bills in question are to be considered as having received assent on the date they were resubmitted to the Governor. This directive was passed under Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to issue orders necessary to ensure “complete justice.”
Setting Timelines to Prevent Future Deadlock
In a major move aimed at ensuring accountability, the Court also laid down specific timelines for Governors to act on Bills:
- If the Governor intends to withhold assent or reserve a Bill on the advice of the Council of Ministers, they must do so within one month.
- If the Governor withholds assent contrary to such advice, the Bill must be returned to the legislature within three months.
- If the Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent without Council approval, it must also be done within three months.
- Once a Bill is re-passed and returned to the Governor, assent must be granted within one month.
Justice Pardiwala clarified that these directions do not alter the Constitution, but serve to operationalize its principles. The phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 was interpreted as placing a clear duty on Governors to act promptly.
Reaffirming the Governor’s Role
While emphasizing the need for constitutional discipline, the Court stressed that the office of the Governor remains an important institution within India’s democratic framework. Justice Pardiwala reminded that the Governor must act as a non-partisan constitutional authority, not as a political functionary.
He invoked Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s famous words, underscoring that the effectiveness of a Constitution lies in the integrity of those who implement it.
Wider Implications
The Court’s ruling is expected to influence similar cases, including a pending matter involving the Kerala Governor. The timelines and clarity offered by today’s decision may shape the legal discourse surrounding gubernatorial discretion across the country.
For more news, visit questiqa.in
