Context:
The Supreme Court ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged delay in giving assent to 10 State Bills was illegal and unconstitutional.
This ruling addresses the increasing misuse of the Governor’s office in Opposition-ruled States and reaffirms cooperative federalism.
Constitutional Provisions Involved:
Article 200 – Governor’s Options on a Bill:
Grant assent
Withhold assent and return the Bill for reconsideration (except Money Bills)
Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration (only if High Court’s powers are endangered)
If the Assembly re-passes the Bill (with/without amendments), Governor is bound to give assent.
Issue of Pocket Veto:
Governors have delayed assent indefinitely without formal action (called “pocket veto”).
The SC held that:
Use of “shall” and “as soon as possible” in Article 200 implies mandatory timely action.
Withholding assent ≠ absolute veto power.
Reservation for President – Clarified:
Cannot reserve a Bill after it is re-passed by the Assembly, unless material changes are made.
Reservation must be based on constitutional grounds, not political dissatisfaction.
Judges imposed a 3-month limit on the President’s decision once a Bill is reserved.
Exceptions only with valid, reasonable grounds
Judicial Review & Supreme Court’s Power:
Governor’s discretion is subject to judicial review
Invoking Article 142, SC deemed the 10 Bills as having received assent
The court found the Governor violated past SC rulings (e.g., Punjab Governor case, 2024) by returning Bills without reasons
Implications:
Strengthens Federalism:
Reinforces the constitutional remedy for State governments against undue delays.
Curbs Executive Overreach:
Prevents abuse of gubernatorial office for political reasons.
Legal Innovation:
Rare use of deemed assent as a legal fiction when constitutional duties are not fulfilled.
Broader Impact:
Could influence reforms in judicial appointments where executive delays undermine the collegium system.
COMMENTS