SC raps TN Governor for sitting on 10 Bills, sets timeline to take a call

The Supreme Court in a landmark verdict on Tuesday set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 Bills and reserve these for President’s consideration, saying the action was “illegal and erroneous”. The court set a timeline for all Governors to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies.

A Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala ordered that the 10 Bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent when these were presented to him the second time after having been passed by the state legislature again.

The Bench, which also included Justice R Mahadevan, further declared “non est” in law any consequential steps taken by the President on the 10 Bills.

The top court pulled up the Governor for arbitrarily sitting on the Bills, saying he did not act in a bona fide manner as the Bills were sent to the President after he had 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 can’t veto bills by simply sitting over them, it noted.

The verdict came as a massive win for the MK Stalin-led DMK government, which has been at loggerheads with Governor Ravi over various Bills, appointment of vice-chancellors and even his customary address to the state Assembly.

Chief Minister Stalin described the verdict as “historic”, and said: “It’s a big victory not just for Tamil Nadu but for all Indian states. The DMK will continue to struggle for and win state autonomy and federal polity.”

Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor can either grant assent to a Bill, withhold it 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 Bench set a timeline for Governors’ decision under Article 200 on Bills sent to them by Assemblies for assent. A Bill can be reserved for the President only at the first instance, it said.

The top court 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 Bills are withheld or reserved for the President contrary to the advice of the state government, the Governor shall take decision within three months, it said. If Bills are presented to the Governor after re-consideration by the Assembly, these have to be assented to by the Governor within one month, it added.

“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 Bench said.

Noting that it didn’t want to undermine the office of the Governor, the Bench said, “…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.”

It said, “In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution…. 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.”

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 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 did not act beyond his jurisdiction as he found these to be repugnant to laws enacted by Parliament.

Directives for Governors

  • If Bill withheld & reserved for Prez on Council of Ministers’ advice, decision to be given within a month
  • If Bill withheld or reserved contrary to state government’s advice, decision to be given three months
  • If Bill is presented after re-consideration by state Assembly, assent to be given within a month
  • A Bill can be reserved for President only at the first instance

Can’t thwart people’s will

“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.” — Bench

Landmark victory

“This is another crucial step in restoring balance in Union-State relations and a landmark victory in TN’s continuous struggle to usher in a truly federal India.” — MK Stalin, Tamil Nadu CM

India