SC Verdict: Governors must act on state bills in a timely manner, adhering to the advice of the council of ministers (Article 200), without undue independent discretion.
Tamil Nadu Case: Governor’s delay in assenting to 10 bills and subsequent referral to the President after re-enactment by the Assembly was deemed “erroneous in law” by the SC.
No “Absolute Veto”: The SC clarified that Governors do not possess an “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” under Article 200, preventing indefinite delays.
Timelines Prescribed: The SC set timelines for Governors: one month to withhold assent, three months if acting against State Cabinet advice, and one month for re-presented Bills.
Governor’s Role: Emphasized as a constitutional head, not a political actor, bound to act with deference to parliamentary democracy and the will of the people. Must act as a “catalyst and not an inhibitor”.
Limited Discretion: Governor can only refuse assent to a bill when a bill is different and Governor’s discretion is subject to judicial review.
Implications: Curbs misuse of gubernatorial powers, reinforces the legislative process, and sets a precedent for states facing similar issues (Kerala, West Bengal, Telangana, Punjab).
Article 142: Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench also declared the 10 Bills as having received assent given “the unduly long period of time for which these Bills were kept pending by the Governor before the ultimate declaration of withholding of assent and in view of the scant respect shown by the Governor”.
Kerala’s Plea: Kerala government requested its similar case against its Governor be transferred to Justice Pardiwala’s court, given the ruling’s relevance.
