The Hindu: Published on 9th April 2025:
Why in News?
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment criticizing Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for unconstitutional delays in acting upon 10 Bills passed and re-passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The court held that the Governor cannot remain inactive or exercise a “pocket veto,” especially once the State Legislature re-passes a Bill.
What Happened:
The court noted that Governor Ravi sat on the Bills for months without any action, and referred them to the President only after they were re-passed by the Assembly and a legal challenge was brought. The court found this conduct to be against constitutional spirit and declared that all 10 Bills in question shall be deemed to have received assent, despite the President later assenting to only one and rejecting seven.
The court called the Governor’s behavior a “roadblock” and emphasized that such delay defeats the principles of federalism and democratic accountability. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, writing the judgment, clarified that the Governor is meant to be a “friend, philosopher and guide”, not a hindrance to the elected State government.
Role of Article 200:
Article 200 of the Constitution allows a Governor to do one of three things when a Bill is presented:
- Give assent;
- Withhold assent;
- Reserve it for the consideration of the President.
However, the article also uses the phrase “as soon as possible,” which, the court ruled, demands action within a reasonable and timely manner. The court clarified that this does not allow Governors to delay or sit on a Bill indefinitely, and certainly does not permit a personal or absolute veto.
What the Court Ordered:
To prevent future misuse, the court laid down strict timeframes within which a Governor must act.
If the Governor intends to withhold assent on the advice of the Cabinet, he must do so within one month. If he wants to return a Bill with objections (going against the Cabinet), that must be done within three months. Similarly, if a Bill is to be reserved for the President, the same three-month limit applies. Most importantly, if the same Bill is re-passed by the State Legislature, the Governor must give assent within one month.
Impact and Significance:
This judgment is seen as a landmark ruling in strengthening India’s federal structure and reinforcing the accountability of Governors, who are centrally appointed but serve constitutional functions in the states. The court warned that any failure to act within the prescribed timelines would attract judicial review. It made it clear that Governors are not above constitutional principles and must act within determinable judicial standards.
The Supreme Court's stance protects the legislative authority of elected state governments and prevents indefinite delays in the law-making process, restoring balance between constitutional functionaries.
