News- In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 State Bills, terming it illegal and erroneous in law. SC verdict on Governor’s assent to Bills.
About Supreme Court’s ruling (Tamil Nadu Governor Assent Case)
- The Court held that the Governor cannot sit indefinitely on Bills passed by the State Legislature, reaffirming that the Governor is a constitutional head, not a political authority.
- Citing its 2023 ruling in the Punjab case, the Court emphasized that the Governor must act within a reasonable time frame and cannot obstruct the legislative process.
- The Court invoked Article 142 to directly deem the 10 pending Bills as having received assent.
- Article 142 empowers the Court to go beyond procedural technicalities and deliver complete justice, particularly in situations where no other legal remedy is available.
Time Limits Prescribed by the Court (Under Article 200)
| Situation | Maximum Time allowed |
| Withhold or reserve Bill (on Ministerial advice) | 1 month |
| Return Bill for reconsideration (contrary to advice) | 3 month |
| Reserve Bill for President (against ministerial advice) | 3 month |
| Assent to reconsidered Bill | 1 month |
Constitutional Provisions regarding Governor’s assent to Bills
Article 163 defines the general powers of the Governor, stating that they must act based on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in situations where the Constitution allows the Governor to exercise discretion.
Article 200- It specifically deals with the issue of granting assent to Bills. As per Article 200, when a Bill is passed by the state legislature, the Governor has four options:
a. Grant Assent
b. Withhold Assent
c. Return the Bill (except Money Bills) for reconsideration.
d. Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration
Key Provision in Article 200:
- Article 200 states that the Governor must return a non-Money Bill “as soon as possible” with a message for reconsideration. If the legislature passes the Bill again, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent.
- However, since no specific timeframe is prescribed for the Governor’s action, this creates a loophole. In practice, the Governor can exercise what is termed a “pocket veto“—withholding action on the Bill indefinitely without either assenting to it or returning it.
- Governors have exploited this ambiguity to sit on Bills indefinitely without returning them to the state legislature, in effect paralysing the elected government.
| Supreme Court earlier Judgments on Governor’s Powers: 1. Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab(1974)– The Supreme Court held that the Governor is bound to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister 2. Nabam Rebia vs. Deputy Speaker (2016)- The Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot delay assent to a Bill indefinitely and must return it with a message if there are any concerns or suggested changes. 3. State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023)– The Supreme Court held that the Governor, as an unelected head, cannot obstruct the legislative process. It further held that if the Governor withholds assent under Article 200, they must return the Bill for reconsideration instead of delaying it indefinitely. |
Discover more from Free UPSC IAS Preparation Syllabus and Materials For Aspirants
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
