The story until now: On April 8, the Supreme Court declared the prolonged negative of the governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi, to give its consent to 10 bills as illegal and erroneous. In a historical verdict, judges JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan underlined the importance of cooperative federalism, amid Conerns on the growing politicization of the governor’s office in the states governed by the opposition.
What is the process of granting assent?
Article 200 of the Constitution delineates the powers conferred to a governor when a bill, after being approved by the state legislature, is presented for the axes. The only exception is money invoices, which is considered to be automatically assent. In all other cases, once both chambers of the Legislature have approved a bill, the governor can exercise one of the four options: subsidy assent, consent retention, return the bill to the Assembly for reconsideration or reserve it for his consideration of the President. However, only those bill that undermine the powers of the Superior Court to the extent that they jeopardize their mandatory role can be reserved for presidential consideration.
Editorial | Legal myth: the Supreme Court and the governor of Tamil Nadu
The first prison in article 200 stipulates that if the governor decides to retain the assent, the bill must return to the assembly “as soon as possible”, accompanied by a request to reconsider the legislation or suggest amendments. However, if the Assembly, after such reconsideration, approves the bill with or without the amendments, the governor is constitutionally obliged to grant assent.
Can the governor exercise a ‘pocket veto’?
The continuous dead point between the governors and the state governments governed by the opposition depends mainly on the interpretation of this prison. Although it demands rapid action, it stops prescribing a definitive timeline. This constitutional silence has exploded or the leg by the governors to delay the action indefinitely in a bill without formally returning it, a tactical collochy known as the “pocket veto”.
However, the judges indicated that the use of the term “must” in the substantive part of article 200, when reads along with the phrase “as soon as possible” in their condition, prevents the possibility of said pocket veto. Judge Pardiwala, who was the author of the sentence, clarified that the governor’s option to retain the assent “cannot be equated with an unqualified power to reject or veto the legislation duly promulgated by the state legislature. He warned that such interpretation would undermine the basis of a representative democracy.
When about the president’s consideration?
By further limiting the discretionary powers of the governor, the court ruled that a bill cannot be reserved for the president’s consideration once he has been returned to the state legislature, reconsidered and forwarded by assent. The only exception is whether the bill, in its second iteration, is different material from the original version. The sentence also clarified that this reservation cannot be based on “personal dissatisfaction” or “political convenience” and is only allowed in cases where there is a serious threat to democratic principles.
Also read | News analysis: The Supreme Court Judgment on Tamil Governor Nadu addresses a constitutional silence
In particular, the judges have established a three -month deadline for the President to decide if he must settle the bill referred to by the governor. The clock will start operating from the day the reference is used. “Any delay beyond this period must be accompanied by justifiable reasons and communicate to the state in question,” says the ruling. A recommendation has also been made to the President to seek the Council of the Supreme Court on said bills, in line with the procedure described in article 143 of the Constitution, as a measure of prudence. The judges pointed out that this course of action is important, given the lack of a state mechanism so that the governor referred to the bills to the constitutional courts for their opinion.
What are the prescribed deadlines?
The Court has imposed similar terms to the governor to avoid any obsruction of the legislative process of the State. He clarified that when the governor, who acts with the Cabinet Council, chooses to retain axes or reserve a bill for the president’s consideration, said action must be tasks immediately and not later a month. If the governor retains the assent contrary to the ministerial advice, the bill must be returned within three months, accompanied by a message detailing the rational of the decision. Similarly, if the governor reserves a bill for the president against the recommendation of the cabinet, this must also be done within three months. Finally, if the state legislature revishes the bill after reconsideration, the governor must grant assent within a month. However, the ruling indicated that any deviation from the thesis deadlines can be tolerated if there are “reasonable reasons.”
Is judicial review allowed?
The judges emphasized that any exercise in the discretion of governor must be susceptible to judicial review to avoid any “contempt” by the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives. Invoking its inherent powers by virtue of article 142 of the Constitution, the Court considered that the 10 pending bills had received assent. Judge Pardiwala reasoned that the exercise of such extraordinary powers was justified, given the “scarce respect” of the governor for the previous decisions. It was particularly critical in the governor’s decision to return the bills without providing reasons, in clear violation of the binding directive of the court in Status of Punjab versus main secretary of the governor of Punjab (2024).
What are the potential implies?
PDT Achary, former secretary general of Lok Sabha, said The Hindu That the ruling defends the principles of federalism and provides state governments governed by the opposition a clear constitutional remedy against excess delays by the governors by granting assent to the bills approved by the Legislature. “The Supreme Court has been enriching the discretionary powers of the governors for some time. However, what distinguishes this judgment is its articulation of definitive terms for Bothnor and the president, ensuring that the promulgation of crucial.
Senior Shadan Farsat lawyer said that the Superior Court has rarely invoked his inherent powers to create a legal fiction of assent considered. “Recognizing automatic assent in cases where the governor does not adhere to the prescribed deadlines, the court has instituted a crucial safeguard against office abuse,” he said. He added that the ruling could pave the way for a similar judicial intervention in cases where the Government of the Union delays acting on the recommendations of the school. “Exciting such powers to judicial appointments would help prevent an executive veto about school decisions,” he told The Hindu.
Published – April 13, 2025 01:34 am ist
