16

Apr

TN Governor’s Conduct: Meaning of Supreme Court’s verdict on withholding assent

image

A close-up of a person with glasses AI-generated content may be incorrect.In a landmark verdict on the federative principle of the country’s Constitution, the Supreme Court on April 8 set aside Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills and reserving them for President even after they were reenacted by the state Assembly calling it “illegal and erroneous”.

The apex court took yet another significant unprecedented step when on April 11 it prescribed that the President should decide on the Bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.

The verdict, in many ways, not only strengthens the Constitution’s defining principle of India being a Union of States which has been under threat ever since the present BJP government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi assumed power in 2014.

The RSS-BJP ecosystem, which has never accepted the ‘separation of power’ and ‘check and balance’ principles of the Constitution, has been trying its best to bring the country’s judicial system under executive control as was evident in the enactment of the National Judicial Appointment Act 2014 in the first few months of assumption of power.

The NJAC Act was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court which did not go well with either the RSS or Prime Minister Narendra Modi and since then it has left no opportunity to run down the judiciary. Ministers, Governors and even the present Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar have been critical of the judiciary.           

Column at a Glance
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled against Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's decision to withhold assent for ten Bills, deeming it "illegal and erroneous." The court emphasized that the President must decide on such Bills within three months of receipt, reinforcing the Constitution's federative principles, which have been perceived as under threat since the BJP government took power in 2014.
Wednesday Wisdom
By Satish Misra
The ruling criticized the Governor for not acting in good faith and highlighted that there is no concept of an "absolute veto" in the Constitution. The court mandated that governors must adhere to timelines for decision-making on Bills, with potential judicial review for non-compliance. The judgment underscores the importance of respecting the democratic will of state legislatures and cautions against political interference by governors, echoing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's sentiment on the integrity of constitutional implementation.

Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar called the Supreme Court’s April 8 decision to set aside the reservation of 10 Bills for President’s consideration in the second- round terming it as “illegal” and erroneous in law a “judicial overreach”.

Before, we take a look at the details of the verdict, it would not be out of place to draw your attention to the BJP and Modi government’s effort to curtail powers of the states and strengthening the central control. Under its popular slogan of “One Nation, One poll” or One Nation, One Education system” “One Nation, One language” etc, the Modi government has been trying to wrest control from states.      

The court observed that the Governor did not act in a bona fide manner as the Bills were sent to the President after the Governor himself sat over them over a long time. The Bills were reserved for the President soon after the top court's ruling in the Punjab Governor's case that a Governor cannot veto bills by simply sitting over them.

Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor can either grant assent to Bills or withhold his assent or reserve the same for the President.

Pronouncing the verdict for the Bench, Justice Pardiwala, however, said there was no concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” under the Constitutional scheme.

The top court set timelines for the Governors' decision under Article 200 on Bills sent him by the Assembly for assent. A Bill can be reserved for the President only at the first instance, it said.

Four days after the top court cleared 10 Bills, which were stalled and reserved by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi for the President's consideration, and set a timeline for all governors to act on the Bills passed by the state Assemblies, the judgement running into 415 pages was uploaded on the apex court's website at 10.54 pm on April 11.

“We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs... and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received”, the top court said underlining the defining principle of the country federative structure as framed in the Constitution. 

“In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State. The States are also required to be collaborative and extend co-operation by furnishing answers to the queries which may be raised and consider the suggestions made by the Central government expeditiously,” the top court said.

Without mincing words, the court said “where the Governor reserves a Bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before this Court”.

Observing that the Governor is required to abide by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers, the top court said it is not open for the Governor to reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President once it is presented to him in the second round, after having been returned to the House previously.

The apex court set timelines and said failure to comply with it would make the inaction of the governors subject to judicial review by the courts.

“The Governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the State legislature in order to thwart and break the will of the people for political ends. The members of the State legislature have been elected by the people of the State as a result of the democratic outcome are better attuned to ensure the well-being of the people. Hence, any expression contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the State legislature, would be a renege on the Constitutional oath,” the top court said.

Quoting Dr BR Ambedkar, Justice Pardiwala said, “However good a constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.”

**************

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed