TOP COURT SETS TIMELINES, DECLARES INACTION BY GOVERNORS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; TN GOVERNOR’S ACTIONS DEEMED ILLEGAL
In a landmark decision set to reshape Centre-State relations, the Supreme Court issued a significant ruling on Tuesday delineating the powers and responsibilities of State Governors under Article 200 of the Constitution of India. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that Governors cannot delay or withhold assent to bills indefinitely and set clear timelines for decision-making.
The ruling comes in response to a case involving the Tamil Nadu Governor, who was found to have acted beyond constitutional bounds by reserving 10 represented bills for the President’s consideration — a move the Court declared illegal and erroneous.
GOVERNOR’S POWERS CLEARLY DEFINED
The Court clarified that once a bill passed by the State legislature is presented to the Governor, he has only three constitutionally sanctioned options:
- Assent to the bill
- Withhold assent (with reasons)
- Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration
“Whenever a bill is presented to the Governor, he is under a constitutional obligation to adopt one of the three courses of action available,” the Bench said.
NO POCKET VETO OR ABSOLUTE VETO ALLOWED
The judgment strongly criticized the practice of Governors sitting on bills without taking any action.
“The expression ‘as soon as possible’ in the first proviso… does not allow the Governor to sit on the bills and exercise pocket veto over them,” the Court stated.
It further held that an absolute veto (simply withholding assent with no further action) is impermissible under Article 200.
BILLS RECONSIDERED BY THE HOUSE MUST BE ASSENTED
If the legislature re-passes a bill with or without amendments after the Governor returns it, the Governor must give assent and cannot reserve it again, unless the bill has materially changed.
“The use of the expression ‘shall not withhold assent therefrom’… places a clear embargo on the Governor.”
TAMIL NADU GOVERNOR’S ACTION STRUCK DOWN
The Court ruled that the reservation of 10 bills by the Tamil Nadu Governor, after they had been reconsidered by the State Legislature, was unconstitutional.
“Any subsequent action taken upon the said bills by the President also does not survive and is thus set aside,” the judgment stated.
Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court ordered that the bills in question shall be deemed to have received assent from the Governor on the date they were represented by the Legislature.
TIMELINES SET FOR GOVERNOR’S DECISIONS
To prevent misuse of discretion, the Court prescribed strict timelines for the Governor’s actions:
- 1 month: To either assent or reserve the bill when acting on the Council of Ministers’ advice
- 3 months: To return the bill or reserve it if acting against the advice of the Council
- 1 month: To grant assent to a re-presented bill
- “Failure to act within a reasonable time would make the inaction subject to judicial review,” the Court warned.
BK PAVITRA JUDGMENT OVERRULED
The ruling also declared the earlier BK Pavitra judgment, which held that Governors had discretion in reserving bills, as per incuriam (not valid law).
“The removal of the expression ‘in his discretion’… indicates that any such discretion became unavailable with the commencement of the Constitution,” the Court observed.
It reaffirmed the Shamsher Singh doctrine that Governors must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in narrowly defined constitutional exceptions.
JUDICIAL REVIEW PERMISSIBLE
The Court emphasized that the Governor’s actions under Article 200 are justiciable, meaning courts can review and strike down arbitrary or unconstitutional decisions.
“Withholding of assent or reservation of bills… is subject to the limits defined by the Constitution and would be justiciable on judicially determinable grounds.”
CONCLUSION
This landmark verdict reinforces the constitutional mandate that Governors are not parallel legislatures or veto authorities, but formal heads bound to act within the framework of the Constitution. The judgment is expected to significantly impact future Centre-State relations and uphold the democratic will of elected State governments.
