SC junks TN Guv’s move to reserve bills for Prez, lays down timelines for assent

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to reserve ten re-enacted state bills for Presidential assent after having earlier withheld approval, declaring the move “erroneous” and in violation of the Constitution.

A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor’s actions lacked bona fides and amounted to an impermissible “pocket veto,” ruling that the ten bills-- re-passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly after initially being withheld -- were deemed to have received the Governor’s assent on the day they were returned to him, setting aside any contrary action taken subsequently.

“We are of the firm view that the reservation of the ten bills is in contravention of Article 200 and declared erroneous in law,” said justice Pardiwala while delivering the verdict. “The Governor did not act bona fide, and the bills are deemed to have been assented to on the date they were re-presented by the assembly,” he added.

The court categorically held that once a Governor withholds assent, he must act swiftly, either returning the bill to the assembly or reserving it for the President “as soon as possible,” as required by the Constitution. It clarified that this phrase does not grant the Governor an indefinite timeframe or an absolute veto.

Also Read:Guv’s discretion can’t override constitutional provisions: SC

Reiterating foundational constitutional principles, the bench ruled that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers and does not enjoy any discretionary powers under Article 200. “Any discretion available to the Governor under the Government of India Act, 1935, became unavailable on the implementation of the Constitution,” said the court.

It also rejected the argument that the first proviso to Article 200, which permits a Governor to reserve a bill for the President, creates an independent route. Instead, it must be read in conjunction with withholding assent and not as a separate power, the court noted.

“The concept of an absolute veto or a pocket veto is alien to our constitutional scheme. Whenever a bill is presented, the Governor is constitutionally bound to adopt one of the three options under Article 200 -- assent, withhold, or reserve,” said justice Pardiwala. A Governor cannot, the court said, simply sit on a bill or send it to the President after withholding assent without returning it to the Assembly.

As a general rule, the court held, a Governor cannot reserve a bill for the President after the state assembly has re-passed it unless the re-enacted version is substantively different from the original. In this case, all ten bills were returned in identical form, and the Governor’s subsequent act of referring them to the President was thus held to be unconstitutional.

The court asserted that “the Governor must be conscious not to create any roadblock” to legislative functioning. “We are left with no choice but to declare the 10 bills deemed to have been assented in light of our inherent powers,” said the court.

In a significant step to ensure timely gubernatorial action, the court also laid down specific timelines. In case a Governor decides to withhold assent or reserve a bill for Presidential consideration, he must act within one month. Where such decisions go against the advice of the state government, a maximum period of three months is permitted.

The ruling effectively prevents indefinite delays, a concern that has surfaced in multiple states where governors have withheld assent to bills without communication or action, often stalling key legislations for years.

The verdict comes in the wake of prolonged tensions between Tamil Nadu’s DMK-led government and Governor Ravi, who had withheld assent to several state bills -- some for over two years -- and later forwarded ten of them to the President after the assembly re-enacted them.

During the hearing on February 10, the bench had expressed strong “prima facie” reservations over the Governor’s conduct, questioning the legality of referring bills to the President after sitting on them for years. The justices noted that such a practice undermines the very architecture of Article 200, which aims to provide a clear mechanism for the Governor’s assent, return, or reservation.

At that stage, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P Wilson, appearing for the state, argued that the Governor had acted as a “superlative authority,” thwarting the will of the legislature. “Governors cannot act as a parallel legislature or judiciary,” Singhvi had submitted.

Attorney general, R Venkataramani, defending the Governor, had argued that once assent is withheld, the bill falls and does not require further reconsideration. But the bench pushed back: “If the bill has fallen, how can it be forwarded to the President?” The court was also critical of the Governor’s failure to convey any objections or reasons for withholding assent. “Show us one communication where he raised any constitutional objection,” the bench asked. None was forthcoming, prompting the court to note that legislative reconsideration cannot be “an empty formality.”