The Crossbill Team
In a significant judgment on Monday (April 8), the Supreme Court ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 state bills and subsequently reserve them for the President after their re-enactment by the State Assembly was both “illegal and erroneous.”
The court declared that the bills in question—some of which had been pending since January 2020—would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent once they were re-passed and presented a second time by the legislature, Live Law reported.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that the Governor's conduct lacked bona fides, particularly in the context of the timeline of events.
The bills were forwarded to the President only after the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in a similar matter involving the Punjab Governor, reinforcing that governors cannot arbitrarily delay or block legislation passed by elected assemblies.
The bench further held that any actions taken by the President on these laws after being reserved do not hold legal ground, as the process itself was flawed.
Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, the court declared that the bills would be considered as having received gubernatorial assent when they were presented after being re-enacted.
Emphasizing democratic principles, the court remarked, “We are in no way undermining the office of the government. All we say is that the governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people.”
The judgment clarified that the first proviso to Article 200, which allows the Governor to withhold assent, is not a standalone power.
The Governor, upon deciding to withhold assent, must return the bills to the Assembly for reconsideration. In this case, the Governor failed to do so. The court rejected the Attorney General’s contention that the Assembly could not re-enact the bills without such a formal return.
The bench underscored that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in most circumstances while exercising powers under Article 200.
The only exception is in cases where the second proviso applies—namely, bills affecting the powers of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
The court declared that the bills in question—some of which had been pending since January 2020—would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent once they were re-passed and presented a second time by the legislature, Live Law reported.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that the Governor's conduct lacked bona fides, particularly in the context of the timeline of events.
The bills were forwarded to the President only after the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in a similar matter involving the Punjab Governor, reinforcing that governors cannot arbitrarily delay or block legislation passed by elected assemblies.
The bench further held that any actions taken by the President on these laws after being reserved do not hold legal ground, as the process itself was flawed.
Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, the court declared that the bills would be considered as having received gubernatorial assent when they were presented after being re-enacted.
Emphasizing democratic principles, the court remarked, “We are in no way undermining the office of the government. All we say is that the governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people.”
The judgment clarified that the first proviso to Article 200, which allows the Governor to withhold assent, is not a standalone power.
The Governor, upon deciding to withhold assent, must return the bills to the Assembly for reconsideration. In this case, the Governor failed to do so. The court rejected the Attorney General’s contention that the Assembly could not re-enact the bills without such a formal return.
The bench underscored that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in most circumstances while exercising powers under Article 200.
The only exception is in cases where the second proviso applies—namely, bills affecting the powers of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment