-
SC reprimands TN Governor: The Supreme Court criticized Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for delaying action on and reserving 10 state bills for the President.
-
Unconstitutional Action: The Court deemed the Governor’s reservation of bills for the President’s consideration unconstitutional.
-
Article 200 Focus: The case highlights the interpretation of Article 200, which outlines the Governor’s powers regarding state bills (assent, withhold, reserve for President).
-
Governor’s Limited Discretion: The SC clarified that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot indefinitely delay bills or exercise an “absolute veto.”
-
Timelines Introduced: The Supreme Court, for the first time, established specific timelines for Governors to act on bills:
- 1 month to withhold assent or reserve for President (with CoM advice)
- 3 months to return bill if withholding assent without CoM advice
- 1 month to give assent after the bill is re-passed
-
Judicial Review: Governor inaction within these timelines will be subject to judicial review. The SC can use Article 142 to declare bills as deemed to have received assent.
-
Democratic Principles Reaffirmed: The Court emphasized that Governors should not obstruct the legislative process. They should facilitate governance, not paralyze it.
-
Re-passed Bills: A Governor cannot reserve a re-passed bill for the President unless its content has materially changed.
-
Delayed Assent Concerns: Delays in granting assent undermine legislative autonomy and can spark judicial scrutiny.
-
Presidential Action: If a bill is reserved for the President, the President may assent, withhold assent (Article 201), or direct the Governor to return it to the assembly.
