Why in News?

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 Bills, declaring it illegal and contrary to constitutional provisions.

The ruling reasserts the limited discretionary powers of Governors and reinforces the primacy of elected state governments in the legislative process.

This verdict is especially significant in the context of Opposition-ruled states, where Governors are often seen as aligned with the Centre, leading to political tension and legislative gridlocks.

The Court's decision is likely to influence ongoing and future disputes, including a similar case concerning delays by the Kerala Governor in assenting to state Bills, which is currently under judicial consideration.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Constitutional Role of the Governor in Assenting to Bills
• Earlier Judgements of SC on Governors Power to Withhold Assent
• Supreme Court’s Ruling in Tamil Nadu Governor Assent Case

Constitutional Role of the Governor in Assenting to Bills

• Article 163 outlines the general powers of the Governor, requiring them to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers except in certain discretionary matters.
• Article 200 specifically deals with the Governor’s options when a Bill is presented after being passed by the State Legislature.
• Governor’s Four Options Under Article 200
  • Grant Assent to the Bill.
  • Withhold Assent to the Bill.
  • Return the Bill (except Money Bills) for reconsideration.
  • Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.
• Key Proviso in Article 200
  • The Governor may return a non-money Bill “as soon as possible” with a message for reconsideration.
  • If the Bill is passed again by the legislature, the Governor is bound to grant assent.
  • However, no specific timeframe is defined for the Governor to act, creating a loophole.
• Issue of Delay
  • Governors, particularly in Opposition-ruled states, have used this ambiguity to delay assent indefinitely, leading to legislative deadlocks and Centre–State tensions.
• Impact of Indefinite Delay
  • An open-ended delay in granting assent can paralyse the functioning of an elected government.
  • This tactic is often equated to a “pocket veto”, where the Governor neither assents nor returns the Bill, effectively stalling legislation.
• Governor Power to Sit on a Bill Indefinitely
  • Article 200 uses the word “shall”, indicating a mandatory obligation on the Governor to act.
  • This reflects the Constitution’s intent that the Governor should not indefinitely withhold assent but act within a reasonable time frame.

Earlier Judgements of SC on Governors Power to Withhold Assent

• Nabam Rebia Case (2016): Arunachal Pradesh Assembly Ruling
  • In the Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker case, the Supreme Court emphasized that:
    • The Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely.
    • If the Governor has concerns, they must return the Bill with a message, which may include recommended amendments.
  • The Court cited Rules 102 and 103 of Assembly procedures, mandating the Speaker to read or circulate the Governor’s message when a Bill is returned.
• State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023)
  • The dispute involved the Punjab government and Governor Banwarilal Purohit, who refused assent to certain Bills, citing procedural irregularities in reconvening the Assembly.
  • The Governor claimed the session was illegal, as it was resumed after an adjournment sine die without formal prorogation.
  • The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Punjab government, stating:
    • A Governor is an unelected Head of the State and must not obstruct the legislative process.
    • If the Governor chooses to withhold assent under Article 200, they must follow the first proviso — i.e., return the Bill for reconsideration, not stall it indefinitely.

Supreme Court’s Ruling in Tamil Nadu Governor Assent Case

• The Court relied on its 2023 ruling in the Punjab case but went a step further by introducing specific time limits for the Governor's actions under Article 200.
• Time Limits Prescribed
  • Timely Action When Acting on Ministerial Advice
    • If the Governor decides to withhold assent or reserve a Bill for the President, they must take action within a maximum of one month, provided it is based on the advice of the State Council of Ministers.
  • Return of Bill When Acting Contrary to Advice
    • When the Governor withholds assent contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, they are required to return the Bill with a message for reconsideration within a period of three months.
  • Reservation for the President Against Ministerial Advice
    • If the Governor chooses to reserve the Bill for the President despite the contrary advice of the State Council, such reservation must also be made within a maximum of three months.
  • Assent to Reconsidered Bill
    • In cases where the Bill is re-presented after reconsideration by the legislature, the Governor must grant assent within a maximum period of one month.
  • Failure to act within these timelines would make the Governor’s inaction subject to judicial review, reinforcing democratic accountability and ensuring that the legislative process is not obstructed arbitrarily.
• Use of Article 142 – “Complete Justice”
  • The Court invoked Article 142 to directly deem the 10 pending Bills as assented to.
  • Reason: The Bills were kept pending for an unduly long period, showing “scant respect” by the Governor for earlier judicial guidance.
  • Article 142 empowers the Court to go beyond technicalities and deliver complete justice, especially where no legal remedy otherwise exists.