The Supreme Court criticized Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged delay in acting on 10 key Bills, calling his actions "unconstitutional."
The Governor delayed the Bills for months and only referred them to the President after they were re-passed by the State Legislature and came under judicial scrutiny.
The court declared that the Bills had received assent and deemed the President's actions on them void.
The court set clear timelines for Governors to act on future Bills, to ensure timely decisions.
The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor must act on a Bill presented to them within a reasonable time frame.
The court emphasized that a Governor has a maximum of one month to withhold assent on the advice of the State Cabinet.
If the Governor disagrees with the Cabinet's advice and withholds assent, they must return the Bill within three months, providing reasons for their decision.
The court also clarified that if the State Legislature re-passes a Bill, the Governor must grant assent within a maximum of one month.
It emphasized that Governors should be facilitators, not obstacles, in the legislative process and must not withhold assent indefinitely.
The court ruled that Governors cannot use "pocket veto" and must respect the advice of the State Cabinet when dealing with Bills.
The removal of the phrase "in his discretion" from the Government of India Act of 1935 indicates that Governors no longer have discretion regarding reserving Bills.
The ruling was seen as a victory for state autonomy and federalism, with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin calling it "historic."
The judgment was widely welcomed, except by the AIADMK and BJP, and praised for upholding the rights of State Legislative Assemblies.
COMMENTS