Governor cannot change mind second time, says SC

T.N. Governor R.N. Ravi.
| Photo Credit: S.S. Kumar

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 8, 2025) held that a Governor cannot reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration when the proposed law, which was earlier rejected by him, is presented for the second time by the State Legislature.

A Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala referred to how the Tamil Nadu Governor had withheld consent to 10 Bills sent to him the first time for consent under Article 200 of the Constitution.

However, in the second round, after the Bills were re-passed by the State Assembly, the Governor chose to opt to refer them to the President.

Justice Pardiwala observed that had the Governor wanted to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President, he ought to have done it in the first instance itself.

The court said the decision of the Tamil Nadu Governor to push the Bill to the President was not “bona fide”.

The apex court clarified that a Bill is “presented again after reconsideration in accordance with the first proviso of Article 200, the Governor must grant assent forthwith or subject to a maximum of one month”.

“As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President once it was presented before him in the second round after having been returned to the House previously as per the first proviso (of Article 200). The use of the expression ‘shall not withhold assent thereof’ appearing in the first proviso places a clear embargo on the Governor and clear enunciation on the requirement that the Governor must accept the Bills which is presented to him after complying with the provisions laid down in the first proviso,” the court observed.

The top court said the expression ‘in his discretion’ was removed from Section 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935 when it was being adopted as Article 200 of the Constitution.

“This clearly indicates that any discretion available to the Governor under the Act 1935 in respect of reservation of Bills became unavailable with the commencement of the Constitution,” Justice Pardiwala observed.