In a strong judgement, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 8, held that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi acted in violation of the Constitution by withholding assent to 10 State bills, including some that were pending since January 2020, and subsequently reserving them for the President after the State Assembly passed them again.
A bench comprising SC Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that reserving the 10 bills for the President after they were re-enacted by the State Legislature was "illegal and erroneous in law and liable to be set aside.”
The court also said that the Governor did not act bona fide, noting that he had "sat over the bills" for an extended period. The court also said that the Governor forwarded them to the President soon after the apex court’s judgement in the Punjab Governor case, in which the top court categorically stated that Governors cannot veto legislation simply by delaying action.
Consequently, the Court declared that the Governor’s action of reserving these 10 bills was in "contravention of Article 200 and declared erroneous." It further held that any consequential steps taken by the President on these 10 bills are equally erroneous and non-est (non-existent) in law. The Court also stated that the ten Bills “were deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date when they were re-presented” to him by the State Legislature.
Justice Pardiwala observed that "there is no concept of absolute veto or pocket veto" under the Indian constitutional framework. Absolute veto and pocket veto are both types of veto powers used by a President to withhold assent to a bill. An absolute veto is when the President refuses to sign the bill and return it, while a pocket veto is when the President does not take any action within a certain time, effectively killing the bill. Under Article 200, the Governor is constitutionally bound to either grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the President, but only at the first instance. Once the bills were re-passed, the Governor’s option to reserve them no longer remained.
Reiterating established constitutional principles, the Court observed that the Governor is required to act as per the aid and advice of the State government. “At the cost of repetition, we say that the Governor must act on aid and advice of the State Legislature,” the court said.
The following timelines were also laid down by the Court for Governors' actions under Article 200:
If the Governor chooses to withhold assent or reserve a bill for the President, action must be taken within one month.
If the Governor acts contrary to the advice of the State by withholding assent or reserving a bill, a final decision must be taken within a maximum of three months.
The bench stressed that the Governor must be conscious not to create any roadblocks in the functioning of the state legislature and the government.
The judgement comes in response to petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against the Governor's delay in assenting to 12 bills. The controversy escalated after the Governor withheld assent and then reserved 10 of them for the President after they were passed again by the Assembly.
On the other hand, the Union government argued that the Governor was concerned about the repugnancy of the state laws with central statutes. However, the bench noted that if such repugnancy was the reason, the Governor ought to have informed the Assembly instead of sitting on the bills. The Court had orally observed during proceedings that the Governor “had adopted his own procedure” in withholding assent.