Supreme Court sets aside Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to reserve 10 Bills for President
Terming it “illegal and erroneous”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills and reserving them to the President even after they were re-enacted by the state Assembly.
A Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala declared that the 10 Bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent when they were presented to him for the second time after having been passed by the state legislature again.
The Bench – which also included Justice R Mahadevan further declared that any consequential steps taken by the President on the said 10 Bills would be non-est in law.
The Governor did not act in a bona fide manner as the Bills were sent to the President after the Governor himself sat over them over a long time. The Bills were reserved for the President soon after the top court’s ruling in the Punjab Governor’s case that a Governor cannot veto bills by simply sitting over them.
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor can either grant assent to Bills or withhold his assent or reserve the same for the President.
Pronouncing the verdict for the Bench, Justice Pardiwala, however, said there was no concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” under the Constitutional scheme.
The top court set timelines for the Governors’ decision under Article 200 on Bills sent him by the Assembly for assent. A Bill can be reserved for the President only at the first instance, it said.
The Bench said in case of withholding assent to Bills and reserving it for the President with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the Governor has to take a decision within one month.
In case of withholding of Bills or reservation for the President contrary to the advice of the state government, the Governor shall take decision within three months, it said.
In case of presentation of Bills after re-consideration by the state Assembly, the Bills have to be assented to by the Governor within one month, the Bench said.
“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 top court said.
Quoting Dr BR Ambedkar, Justice Pardiwala said, “However good a constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.”
The verdict came on Tamil Nadu Government’s petition challenging the Governor’s decision to sit over the Bills passed by the state Assembly. The Bench had reserved its verdict on the issue on February 10.
Attorney General R Venkataramani had defended the Governor’s actions, saying he had not acted beyond his jurisdiction in withholding assent to Bills and referring them to the President as he found them to be repugnant to laws enacted by Parliament.
“The Governor has the discretion to send it to the President even after the bills were re-enacted because the bills were repugnant. Once the bills were with the President, Article 254 came into play, and the bills ceased to exist,” Venkataramani had submitted.
India