New Delhi: Supreme Court Upholds TN Assembly’s Will, Slams Governor’s Delay on Bills
In a significant ruling strengthening legislative autonomy, the Supreme Court on Tuesday declared that 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly are to be considered as law from the date they were sent to the Governor. The top court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to enforce this, criticising the Governor’s prolonged delay in granting assent.
Governor’s Withholding of Assent Deemed “Illegal”
The bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that Governor R N Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to the bills was “illegal” and “arbitrary”. The court observed that the Governor’s action was not in accordance with the provisions of Article 200 of the Constitution, which prescribes three limited courses of action: granting assent, withholding assent, or reserving the bill for the President.
The court held that an absolute or indefinite withholding of assent—referred to as a “pocket veto”—is not permissible under the Constitution.
Article 142 Invoked to Remedy Legislative Paralysis
Owing to the prolonged inaction and alleged lack of bona fides in the Governor’s conduct, the Supreme Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 142 to deem the 10 bills as having received assent on the date they were re-presented to the Governor after reconsideration by the Assembly.
The court remarked that it was left with “no choice” but to take this step, especially given the Governor’s delay following the verdict in a similar case involving the Punjab Governor.
Bills Re-Presented Cannot Be Reserved Again
Highlighting a crucial constitutional limitation, the court noted that a bill can be reserved for Presidential consideration only the first time it is presented. Once the Assembly reconsiders and re-passes a bill, the Governor cannot then reserve it again unless the content has been substantially altered.
The reservation of all 10 bills, including those related to the appointment of university Vice-Chancellors, after re-passage by the Assembly, was ruled invalid.
‘Governor Must Act as Constitutional Facilitator‘
Justice Pardiwala, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the Governor’s role is not to obstruct governance. The Governor must function as a “friend, philosopher and guide” to the state administration, not as a political agent.
He further added that the Governor must act in consonance with his constitutional oath, aimed at preserving the Constitution and serving the well-being of the state’s people.
Legislative Authority Must Not Be Obstructed
The court noted that elected state legislators are representatives of the people’s will and are best suited to make decisions concerning the state’s governance. Any obstruction of their work by constitutional authorities would violate democratic principles and the Constitution itself.
Justice Pardiwala remarked that constitutional functionaries should strive to resolve institutional frictions rather than escalate them. The Governor must become a “catalyst” in the governance process, not a “chokehold” that derails legislative action.
Upholding Constitutional Dignity
Before concluding, the bench reiterated that those occupying high constitutional offices must remain true to the values and responsibilities entrusted to them. Their actions must reflect adherence to constitutional mandates and respect for democratic conventions.
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a clear assertion that the role of the Governor is not to hinder legislative processes, but to uphold the Constitution impartially and facilitate governance.