New Delhi: In a major victory for the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared 10 Bills that were stalled and reserved by Governor RN Ravi for President’s consideration, and also
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held, “Action of the Governor to reserve the 10 Bills for President is illegal and arbitrary and thus the action is set aside. The 10 Bills shall be deemed cleared from the date these were re-presented to the Governor.”
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin hailed the Supreme Court verdict, hailing it as ‘historic’, and a ‘victory for all State Governments in the country’. In the first-of-its-kind directions, the top court fixed a timeline within which a Governor has to act on Bills passed by the state legislature. The Supreme Court said there was no expressly specified time limit for the discharge of functions by a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution.
“Despite there being no prescribed time limits, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action on the Bills, which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay, and essentially roadblock, law-making machinery in the state,” it said.
The top court has set a timeline ranging from a month to three months for the Governors to decide the fate of the Bills cleared by the State Assemblies. Fixing the timeline, the bench said in case assent on a Bill is withheld and reserved for President’s consideration with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the maximum period would be one month.
In case a Governor decided to withhold assent without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the Bills must be returned to the Assembly concerned within three months, it added. The top court said in case of presentation of a Bill after reconsideration by the State Assembly, it will have to be assented to by the Governor within one month.
The bench cautioned that failure to comply with the timeline would make the inaction of the Governor concerned subject to judicial review. The top court exercised its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to make the Bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor deemed passed. It said the Governor must be conscious to not create “roadblocks or chokehold” on the state legislature in order to “thwart and break the will of the people”.
“The members of state legislature, having been elected by the people of the state as an outcome of the democratic expression, are better attuned to ensure the wellbeing of the people of the state,” the bench said. Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the bench said, a Governor did not possess any discretion and has to mandatorily act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Article 200 empowers a Governor to give assent to Bills presented to him, withhold assent, or to reserve it for the consideration of the President.
The bench said a Governor couldn’t sit over Bills and adopt the concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto”. ‘Pocket veto’ denotes a concept wherein a Governor sits over the Bills without signing them and this making them virtually ineffective. The bench said a Governor sitting over Bills passed by the Assembly and presented to him, without any action, reduced them to just “piece of paper” and “skeleton without flesh”. Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the bench said, a Governor was obligated to adopt any one course of action -accord assent to Bills, withhold assent or reserve them for consideration of the President. The bench said it was not open for a Governor to reserve a Bill for President’s consideration after it was presented to him for the second time.
It said a Governor must assent to the Bills produced before him in the second round and the only exception was that the Bill in the second instance was different from the first one. It also held that the actions of a Governor did not enjoy immunity from judicial review. “Any action contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the state legislature, would be a renege of his (Governor) constitutional oath,” the bench said.
A Governor must perform his role as a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion and not be guided by political considerations, the apex court added. “In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the state machinery by his sagacity, wisdom, and not run it into a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor,” the bench said.
The apex court had previously framed questions to answer in a dispute between Tamil Nadu Government and the Governor over the delay in assent to Bills passed by the legislative Assembly. The bench framed 12 questions largely on the power of the Governor under Article 200 in giving assent to Bills, withholding assent and reserving them for consideration of the President.
The apex court had then questioned the Governor’s “silence” before withholding assent to the Bills passed by the Assembly and wondered how he could refer the “re-passed Bills” to the President.
The delay in giving assent by the Governor prompted the State Government to move the top court in 2023, claiming 12 Bills, including one from 2020, were pending with him. On November 13, 2023, the Governor declared he was withholding assent to 10 Bills following which the Assembly convened a special session and re-enacted the very same Bills on November 18, 2023. The Governor on November 28, 2023 reserved some of the Bills for consideration of the President.
