What Was the Problem?
The Governor of Tamil Nadu refused to act on several Bills passed by the State Assembly — no assent, no return, no referral — effectively using a “pocket veto”.
After pressure from the Supreme Court, the Governor finally acted — returned the Bills once, and later sent them to the President.
The President assented to 1 Bill, rejected 7, and did not act on 2.
Similar conflicts are happening in other States too, especially where Opposition parties are in power.
What Did the Supreme Court Say?
The Governor cannot indefinitely delay action on Bills. The Constitution does not allow a “pocket veto”.
A Governor must either assent, return, or refer a Bill — not a combination of these actions.
The President also must have legal reasons (like a conflict with central law) to withhold assent.
To fix the delay, the Court used its powers under Article 142 to declare the Bills as law.
It also set timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills — even though the Constitution doesn’t mention any.
The Bigger Constitutional Issue
The Governor’s role is a carryover from British colonial rule, meant to control elected governments.
The Constitution allows room for misuse because it did not clearly define limits on Governor’s powers.
India’s founders wanted a strong central government, which caused an imbalance in Centre-State power-sharing.
This led to constitutional “silences” that some Governors exploit today.
Why This Judgment Matters
The Court’s decision is a corrective step to prevent misuse of power by Governors.
Critics say the Court overstepped its powers, but supporters argue it was necessary to protect federalism.
The issue points to a need for long-term reforms, such as:
Re-evaluating the Governor’s role,
Strengthening federalism, and
Fixing outdated constitutional design.
COMMENTS