Governor's Role and Assent to Bills
The Governor of Tamil Nadu had delayed action on 10 Bills for years, and later sent them to the President after the Assembly passed them again.
The Supreme Court ruled this action unconstitutional, as Article 200 requires the Governor to either assent or return the Bill for reconsideration.
The Court held that the Governor cannot veto or indefinitely delay a Bill; he must act within a reasonable time and must give assent if the Assembly passes the Bill again.
Court’s Use of Article 142 and Key Rulings
The Court used its special powers under Article 142 to declare the Bills—previously rejected by the President—as deemed assented.
This is historic, marking the first time the Court treated withheld Bills as passed due to misuse of power by a constitutional authority.
The Court also clarified that once a Bill is returned and passed again by the legislature, the Governor is bound to assent.
Time Limits, Discretion, and Advice
The Court introduced a time limit of 1 to 3 months for the Governor and President to act on a Bill, to prevent misuse of delay (like a "pocket veto").
It ruled that the Governor can act only on the advice of the Council of Ministers when withholding or referring a Bill.
However, the logic of the Governor withholding assent on the government's advice is unclear, as the government already supports the Bill.
Some critics argued the judgment involves constitutional interpretation and should have been decided by a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3).
Though some question whether a smaller Bench can make such rulings, the Court clarified it was interpreting—not amending—the Constitution.
Judicial Review and Constitutional Impact
The Court held that the Governor and President’s decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are not beyond judicial review.
It emphasized that no constitutional authority is above scrutiny, countering the argument of judicial overreach.
This judgment restores balance in the system, ensuring elected legislatures aren't blocked by unelected constitutional heads.
The Court’s interpretation sets a powerful precedent to protect federalism and democracy from arbitrary inaction.
COMMENTS