Crime Today News
Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi
| Photo Credit:
ANI
The Supreme Court in a judgment on Tuesday found Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi was no “friend, guide or philosopher” to the State for having sat for years on 10 crucial Bills, only to refer them to the President in a sleight of hand soon after they were re-passed by the State Legislature and on learning his conduct was under judicial scrutiny.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said in a judgment, Governor Ravi acted illegally like a “roadblock” by delaying action on the Bills sent to him for consent by the State Legislature under Article 200 of the Constitution.
“Once a Bill is presented to the Governor, he is under a Constitutional obligation to opt for one of the three choices – assent, withhold assent and reservation of the Bills for consideration by the President – under Article 200. The phrase ‘as soon as possible’ permeates Article 200 with a sense of expediency and does not allow Governors to sit on Bills and exercise pocket veto over them,” Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment, observed.
Deadline set
In a significant move, the court fixed maximum time limits of one to three months for Governors to take a call on Bills.
Justice Pardiwala said Governors must be put on the clock as the Constitutional significance of Article 200 and federal polity required that their conduct answer to “determinable judicial standards”. Any failure to comply with the timelines would invite judicial review of the Governor concerned, the court warned.
Senior advocates AM Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, P Wilson and advocate Sabarish Subramanian appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu. Attorney General of India R Venkataramani appeared for the Governor’s office in the case.
The judgment explained that under the first proviso of Article 200, if the Governor opted to withhold assent, he had to return the Bill to the Assembly ‘as soon as possible’ with a ‘message’ to reconsider the proposed law or specific provisions or even suggesting amendments. The Tamil Nadu Governor had withheld consent to the 10 Bills without assigning any reasons as required under Article 200 of the Constitution.
Justice Pardiwala declared that Governors had no such “absolute or pocket veto”. “Governors cannot withhold assent simplicter [in a summary manner]” the court declared.
If the House passed the Bill again and presented it to a Governor, the latter would be bound to grant consent without exercising personal discretion, the court pronounced.
Accountability
“If a Bill is presented after reconsideration in accordance with the first proviso, the Governor must grant consent forthwith or within a maximum of one month,” the court dictated.
The Tamil Nadu Assembly had re-passed the 10 Bills in a special session held on November 18, 2023 without making any amendments, and returned them to the Governor for his consent again. The Governor, this time, had sat on the “re-passed” Bills indefinitely, only to reserve them for the consideration of the President on November 28, 2023 after the State approached the apex court.
The top court declared the Governor’s conduct arbitrary, non-est (non-existent) and erroneous in law.
Governors, as a general rule, had to abide by the aid and advice of the State Cabinet under Article 200 while deciding on Bills, the court noted.
The decision to reserve Bills for consideration of the President could be done only in specific cases enumerated in the Constitution, including if a proposed law was “repugnant” or inconsistent with an existing Central law or if a Bill tended to derogate the Constitutional powers of the State High Court.
Justice Pardiwala declared the subsequent action of the President to assent to one of the 10 Bills while rejecting seven and not considering two others also non-est.
The court invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to deem that the 10 Bills have received assent to be made into laws. This, the court said, would be a fitting response to the prolonged delay on the part of the Governor to take a call on them and his “scant respect” for the Supreme Court’s earlier judgments advocating expedient action.
“A Governor is envisaged as a sagacious counsellor, someone who can pour oil on troubled waters. What unfolded in the current litigation was quite the opposite,” Justice Pardiwala observed.
The court said Governors were expected to protect and defend the values of the Constitution and not be guided by the political expediency of the day. Governors’ actions must align with the oath of the Constitutional office.
“A Governor is a catalyst, not an inhibitor. He is a harbinger to resolution of problems,” Justice Pardiwala said.
The court said Governors must look within themselves and reflect whether their actions were in line with the Constitutional ethos and aspirations of people living in a democratic culture. Delaying assent indefinitely on Bills passed by the State Legislature reduced these proposed laws, which voice the aspirations of the people, into mere pieces of paper.
Public aspirations die a slow death as their aspirations in the form of new laws become skeletons with little or no possibility to come to life, Justice Pardiwala observed.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin in a statement released in the social media said, “We thank and welcome today’s historic judgment of the Supreme Court, reaffirming the legislative rights of State Legislatures and putting an end to the trend of Union government-nominated Governors stalling progressive legislative reforms in Opposition-ruled states. This is another crucial step in restoring balance in Union–State relations and a landmark victory in Tamil Nadu’s continuous struggle to usher in a truly federal India.”
Published on April 8, 2025
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
