Supreme Court Sets Aside TN Governor's Decision To Reserve 10 Bills For President's Assent; Says He Acted Without Bona Fides

The Supreme Court today (April 8) held that the action of the Tamil Nadu Governor Dr RN Ravi withholding assent for 10 bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020, and reserving them to the President after they were re-enacted by the State Legislature is "illegal and erroneous" in law and liable to be set aside.Any consequential steps which might have been taken by the President on the said ten bills were also declared non-est in law.The Court declared that the ten Bills would be deemed to have received the assent of the Governor when they were presented in the second round after they were passed again by the State Assembly.A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor did not act with bona fides, as the bills were sent to the President, after the Governor himself sat over them over a long time, and were reserved for the President soon after the Supreme Court's judgment in the Punjab Governor's case, which held that the Governors cannot veto the bills by sitting over them.No pocket veto or absolute veto on billsThe judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala held that there is no concept of "absolute veto" or "pocket veto" under the Constitutional scheme. As per Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor is expected to take one of the three courses of action on bills - grant assent to bills, withhold assent to bills or reserve the bills for the President. The Court held that the Bill can be reserved for the President only at the first instance."As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve a Bill for the President after the bills have been re-presented by the Government after being passed again by the Assembly. The only exception is when the bill presented in the second round is different from the first version," Justice Pardiwala read out from the judgment.If the Governor withholds assent to the bill, then they must be sent to the AssemblyThe Court also held that the option under first proviso to Article 200 is not an independent option, and that this must be exercised in conjunction with the power in the substantive clause of Article 200. This means that once the Governor declares that he was withholding assent to the bills, then he must send back the bills to the assembly for reconsideration. In this case, the Attorney General had argued that when the Governor declared that he was withholding assent, he did not send them to the Assembly, and hence it was not open for the Assembly to re-enact them. This argument was rejected.Timelines laid down"Keeping in mind the constitutional significance of Article 200 and the role it plays in the federal polity of the country, the following timelines are being prescribed. Failure to comply with the timelines will make the action of the Governor subject to judicial review," the Court observed.1. In case of withholding assent or reservation of the Bill for consideration of the President upon aid and advice of the State's Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such actions forthwith subject to a maximum period of 1 month.2. In case of withholding assent contrary to the advice of the State's Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the Bill together with a message within a maximum period of 3 months.3. In case of reservation of Bills for consideration of the President, contrary to advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of 3 months or 4. In case of reservation of Bills after reconsideration in accordance with the first proviso, the Governor must grant assent forthwith subject to a maximum period of 1 month (This means that bills re-enacted by the Assembly after they were sent back by the Governor, must be assented by the Governor in the second round within one month)Governor has to act as per the aid and advice of the State GovernmentThe Court held that as a general rule, the Governor has to act as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising powers under Article 200. The Governor does not possess any discretion and has to mandatorily act on aid and advice once the bills have been re-enacted.The only exception is when the Bills fall under the description of the second proviso to Article 200 (bills affecting the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court).ConclusionsJustice Pardiwala read out the following conclsuions :1. The withholding of assent or the reservation of bills for the consideration of the President on 28.11.2023, after their due re-consideration by the State legislature, being in contravention of the procedure prescribed under Article 200, is declared erroneous in law, non-est and thus hereby set aside.2. As a result of the above finding, any consequential steps that might have been taken by the President on these ten bills is equally non-est and hereby set aside.3. Having regard to the unduly long period of time for which these bills were kept pending by the Governor, before the ultimate...

Supreme Court Sets Aside TN Governor's Decision To Reserve 10 Bills For President's Assent; Says He Acted Without Bona Fides

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags