Supreme Court Governor Assent Judgment
Kartavya Desk Staff
Syllabus: Polity
Source: Live Law
Context: The Supreme Court of India slammed Tamil Nadu Governor for unconstitutional delay in granting assent to 10 re-passed Bills, deeming them assented and fixing time-bound procedures for future gubernatorial decisions.
About Supreme Court Governor Assent Judgment:
Judgement name: The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Constitutional Provisions on Governor’s Role in State Bills
• Article 200: When a Bill is presented to the Governor after being passed by the State Legislature, the Governor has four options: Grant assent Withhold assent Return the Bill for reconsideration (except Money Bills) Reserve the Bill for President’s consideration
• Grant assent
• Withhold assent
• Return the Bill for reconsideration (except Money Bills)
• Reserve the Bill for President’s consideration
• Provison to Article 200: If the Bill is returned and passed again by the Legislature, the Governor shall not withhold assent.
• Article 163: Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in matters where discretion is allowed.
• Article 142: Grants the Supreme Court the power to do “complete justice” in any case.
Issues Surrounding Governor’s Role in Bills
• No timeline in Article 200: Governors delay assent indefinitely — termed “pocket veto”.
• Political misuse: Governors in Opposition-ruled states have been accused of delaying legislation due to political differences.
• Lack of transparency: Failure to communicate reasons for withholding assent violates constitutional responsibility.
• Rising legal disputes: States like Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana have moved the SC citing similar delays.
Major outcome of Supreme Court Judgement in “The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr” case:
• Declared Governor’s delay illegal: Withholding and referring Bills to the President after re-enactment by State Assembly is unconstitutional.
• Bills deemed to have received assent: Exercising Article 142, SC treated the 10 re-passed Bills as having been assented.
• No absolute or pocket veto: Governors must act promptly; cannot sit indefinitely on Bills or reserve them after re-passage.
• Time-bound framework laid down: 1 Month to assent or reserve as per State Cabinet’s advice. 3 Months if Governor withholds assent against advice. 1 Month to grant assent to a re-enacted Bill. 3 Months maximum to reserve Bill for President (if justified).
• 1 Month to assent or reserve as per State Cabinet’s advice.
• 3 Months if Governor withholds assent against advice.
• 1 Month to grant assent to a re-enacted Bill.
• 3 Months maximum to reserve Bill for President (if justified).
• Must act on Cabinet advice: Except in cases under the second proviso of Article 200 (e.g., affecting High Court powers), Governor has no discretion.
Significance of the SC Judgment:
• Reinforces federalism: Strengthens legislative autonomy of elected state governments.
• Ends misuse of delay: Prevents Governors from paralysing legislation through silence or indefinite inaction.
• Clarifies constitutional intent: Reiterates that “shall” in Article 200 is mandatory, not discretionary.
• Ensures legislative accountability: Upholds Parliamentary democracy where legislature represents the will of the people.
• Applies across states: Affects pending disputes in Kerala, Telangana, Punjab, enhancing judicial consistency.
Conclusion:
By ensuring time-bound gubernatorial assent and striking down arbitrary delays, it strengthens India’s constitutional federalism and safeguards the democratic will of state legislatures. As B.R. Ambedkar aptly stated, the Constitution is only as good as those who implement it — a reminder now echoed from the highest court.
• Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature. (UPSC-2022)