The story so far: On April 8, the Supreme Court declared Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged refusal to give his assent to 10 Bills as illegal and erroneous in law. In a landmark verdict, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan underscored the importance of cooperative federalism, amid growing concerns over the increasing politicisation of the Governor’s office in Opposition-ruled States.
What is the process of granting assent?
Article 200 of the Constitution delineates the powers conferred upon a Governor when a Bill, having been passed by the State legislature, is presented for assent. The only exception is Money Bills, which are deemed to have automatically received assent. In all other cases, once a Bill has been passed by both Houses of the legislature, the Governor can exercise one of four options: grant assent, withhold assent, return the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration. However, only those Bills that undermine the High Court’s powers to the extent of endangering its constitutionally mandated role can be reserved for Presidential consideration.
Editorial | Legal milestone: The Supreme Court and the Tamil Nadu Governor
The first proviso to Article 200 stipulates that if the Governor decides to withhold assent, the Bill must be returned to the Assembly “as soon as possible”, accompanied by a request to reconsider the proposed legislation or suggest amendments. However, if the Assembly, upon such reconsideration, passes the Bill with or without the amendments, the Governor is constitutionally obliged to grant assent.
Can the Governor exercise a ‘pocket veto’?
The ongoing impasse between the Governors and Opposition-ruled State governments primarily hinges on the interpretation of this proviso. While it mandates prompt action, it stops short of prescribing a definitive timeline. This constitutional silence has often been exploited by Governors to indefinitely delay action on a Bill without formally returning it — a tactic colloquially known as the “pocket veto.”
However, the judges pointed out that the use of the term “shall” in the substantive portion of Article 200, when read in conjunction with the phrase “as soon as possible” in its proviso, precludes the possibility of any such pocket veto. Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment, clarified that the Governor’s option to “withhold assent” cannot be equated with an unqualified power to reject or veto legislation duly enacted by the State legislature. He cautioned that such an interpretation would undermine the very foundation of a representative democracy.
When about President’s consideration?
Further limiting the discretionary powers of the Governor, the court ruled that a Bill cannot be reserved for the President’s consideration once it has been returned to the State legislature, reconsidered and resubmitted for assent. The only exception is if the Bill, in its second iteration, is materially different from the original version. The judgment also clarified that such reservation cannot be based on “personal dissatisfaction” or “political expediency” and is only permissible in instances where there is a grave threat to democratic principles.
Also Read | News Analysis: Supreme Court judgment on Tamil Nadu Governor addresses a Constitutional silence
Notably, the judges have set a three-month deadline for the President to decide whether to assent to Bills referred by the Governor. The clock will begin ticking from the day the reference is received. “Any delay beyond this period must be accompanied by justifiable reasons and communicated to the concerned State,” the ruling states. A recommendation has also been made to the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advice on such Bills, in line with the procedure outlined in Article 143 of the Constitution, as a measure of prudence. The judges pointed out that this course of action is important, given the lack of a mechanism at the State level for the Governor to refer Bills to constitutional courts for their opinion.
What are the timelines prescribed?
The court has imposed similar timelines on the Governor to prevent any obstruction of the State’s legislative process. It clarified that when the Governor, acting on the Cabinet’s advice, opts to withhold assent or reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration, such action must be taken forthwith and no later than one month. If the Governor withholds assent contrary to ministerial advice, the Bill must be returned within three months, accompanied by a message detailing the rationale for the decision. Similarly, if the Governor reserves a Bill for the President against the Cabinet’s recommendation, this must also be done within three months. Finally, if the Bill is re-passed by the State legislature after reconsideration, the Governor is required to grant assent within one month. However, the ruling noted that any departure from these timelines may be condoned if there are “reasonable grounds”.
Is judicial review permissible?
The judges emphasised that any exercise of gubernatorial discretion must be amenable to judicial review to prevent any “disregard” for the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives. Invoking its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court deemed the 10 pending Bills to have received assent. Justice Pardiwala reasoned that the exercise of such extraordinary powers was warranted, given the Governor’s “scant respect” for prior rulings. He was particularly critical of the Governor’s decision to return the Bills without providing reasons, in clear violation of the court’s binding directive in State of Punjab versus Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2024).
What are the potential implications?
P.D.T. Achary, former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, told The Hindu that the ruling upholds the principles of federalism and provides Opposition-ruled State governments a clear constitutional remedy against inordinate delays by Governors in granting assent to Bills passed by the legislature. “The Supreme Court has been reining in the discretionary powers of Governors for some time now. However, what sets this judgment apart is its articulation of definitive timelines for both the Governor and the President, ensuring that the enactment of crucial legislation is not indefinitely stalled,” he said.
Senior advocate Shadan Farsat noted that the top court has rarely invoked its inherent powers to create a legal fiction of deemed assent. “By recognising automatic assent in cases where the Governor fails to adhere to the prescribed timelines, the court has instituted a crucial safeguard against abuse of the office,” he said. He added that the ruling could pave the way for similar judicial intervention in cases where the Union government delays acting on collegium recommendations. “Extending such powers to judicial appointments would help prevent an executive veto over the collegium’s decisions,” he told The Hindu.
Published – April 13, 2025 01:34 am IST