The Supreme Court Today (April 8) strongly criticized Governors for blocking elected state governments for political reasons. It reminded them to respect the people’s will and uphold the Constitution. Court ruled that Governors must act quickly on State bills and cannot block or delay them for political reasons. It declared Tamil Nadu Governor’s actions illegal and fixed strict timelines for future decisions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has given a strong message about the growing problem of Governors misusing their powers in some Indian states.
The Court clearly said that Governors must not use their position to stop or delay the work of elected State Governments just for political reasons.
Doing so, the Court said, is against the will of the people who have chosen their leaders through elections.
A bench made up of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said this while passing an important judgment related to Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi.
The Court looked into how the Governor handled – or failed to handle – a bill passed by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature.
The judges clearly stated that the Governor should work with respect towards the traditions of India’s democracy. He should understand that the State Government is chosen by the people, and the Legislature represents their voice.
“The Governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the state legislature in order to thwart and break the will of the people for political [reasons]. The members of the state legislature, having been elected by the people of the state as an outcome of the democratic expression, are better attuned to ensure the well being of the People of the State,”
–the Court commented.
The Supreme Court added that the Governor should act like a guide, philosopher, and friend to the government, and should not behave like a political agent. He should do his duty with honesty and seriousness, based on the oath he takes under the Constitution.
“In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the State machinery by his sagacity, wisdom, and not run it into a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor. All his actions must be impelled, keeping in mind the dignity of the high constitutional office,”
–it said.
Talking about the Governor’s oath, the Court explained that any act by the Governor which goes against the people’s decision is a violation of the constitutional promise he made.
“Any action contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the state legislature, would be a renege of his constitutional oath.”
The bench also reminded that those who hold high constitutional posts, like Governors, must follow the values and ethics of the Indian Constitution. They must make decisions with fairness, not with political bias.
“These values that are so cherished by the people of India are a result of years of struggle and sacrifice of our forefathers. When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give in to political considerations, but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution….They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by that constitutional oath, and if the course of action adopted by them furthers the ideas enshrined in the Constitution. If the authorities attempt to deliberately bypass the Constitution, they are tinkering with the very ideals revered by its people upon which this country has stood,”
–the Court further said.
At the end of the verdict, the Supreme Court shared a powerful quote from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was the chief architect of our Constitution. The Court said this message is still very important today, maybe even more than it was back in 1949.
“However good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad a constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it happen to be a good lot.”
Apex Court: No Delay by Governors
In a very detailed and important ruling, the Supreme Court of India gave clear instructions about what a State Governor can and cannot do when it comes to passing State laws under Article 200 of the Constitution.
The judgment focused on how Governors should act quickly and responsibly when a State legislature passes a bill and sends it for approval.
The Court strongly said that Governors cannot delay or block bills for political or personal reasons, and they must respect the decisions of the elected governments. It also gave strict timelines and legal rules to ensure Governors do not misuse their powers.
Let’s understand the key points from this landmark judgment in simple language.
What are a Governor’s options when a bill is sent?
The Court explained that when a State legislature passes a bill, the Governor has only three options under Article 200:
- a. To give assent (approve the bill).
- b. To withhold assent (not approve, and return it with suggestions).
- c. To reserve the bill for the President’s consideration.
If the Governor returns the bill with suggestions and the Legislature passes it again after changes, the Governor must act quickly and cannot keep delaying. Once he withholds assent, he is legally required to complete the process without delay.
Governor cannot sit silently or block bills
The Court made it absolutely clear that the Governor cannot stay inactive after receiving a bill. The Constitution does not allow a “pocket veto” — where a Governor silently ignores a bill.
“Whenever a bill is presented to the Governor, he is under a constitutional obligation to adopt one of the three courses of action available. Further the expression ‘as soon as possible’ in the first proviso, permeates Article 200 with a sense of expediency and does not allow the Governor to sit on the bills and exercise pocket veto over them. Similarly, by virtue of the first proviso being intrinsically and inextricably attached to the option of withholding of assent, there is no scope for the Governor to declare a simplicitor withholding of assent, meaning thereby absolute veto, is also impermissible under Article 200. It goes without saying that the scheme of Article 200 is characterized by the movement of the bill from one constitutional authority to another, and that too, with a sense of expediency,” the Court said.
This means that Governors must make a decision fast, and cannot use power to completely stop a bill.
Cannot send the same bill to President in second round
If a Governor has already sent back a bill and the Legislature passes it again, the Governor cannot now send it to the President. He must give assent unless the bill has changed significantly.
“The use of the expression ‘shall not withhold assent therefrom’ appearing in the first proviso places a clear embargo on the Governor, and are a clear enunciation of the requirement that the Governor must assent to bills presented to him after complying with the procedure laid down in the first proviso. The only exception to this general rule is when the bill presented in the second round is different from the one presented to the Governor in the first instance,” the Court said.
So, the Governor has no choice but to approve the bill if it’s the same one passed again by the House.
Tamil Nadu Governor’s action was illegal
The Supreme Court ruled that the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to send 10 bills to the President a second time was against the law and Constitution.
“As a result, any subsequent action taken upon the said bills by the President also does not survive and is thus set aside,” the Court ruled.
Since the Governor delayed for too long and did not act honestly, the Court said these bills are now considered approved (assented) from the date they were returned by the legislature.
This extraordinary decision was taken using Article 142, which lets the Court give special directions to do complete justice.
Court gives clear timelines for Governor’s actions
Although Article 200 does not have an exact time limit, the Court said that the Governor cannot keep delaying and should act in a reasonable time. So, the Court decided to set clear timeframes for different actions:
“The use of the expression ‘as soon as possible’ in the first proviso makes it clear that the Constitution infuses a sense of urgency upon the Governor and expects him to act with expediency if he decides to declare the withholding of assent,” it clarified.
Here are the timelines fixed by the Court:
- If the Governor agrees to withhold assent or reserve the bill for the President, with the help of the State Cabinet’s advice, he must do this within 1 month.
- If the Governor withholds assent against the State Cabinet’s advice, he must return the bill with a message within 3 months.
- If the Governor reserves a bill for the President against the Cabinet’s advice, he must do it within 3 months.
- If the bill is passed again after reconsideration, the Governor must give assent within 1 month.
If the Governor does not follow these timelines, the courts can review and take legal action.
BK Pavitra judgment was wrong
The Court also discussed an earlier judgment in the BK Pavitra case, which said the Governor has discretion in sending bills to the President. The current bench disagreed with that view.
“Thus, only in instances where the Governor is by or under the Constitution required to act in his discretion would he be justified in exercising his powers under Article 200 contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers,” the Court observed.
The judges explained that when the Constitution was framed, the phrase “in his discretion” was removed from the law related to Governor’s role. That means the Governor must mostly follow the Cabinet’s advice and has very limited discretion.
“We say so because the removal of the expression ‘in his discretion’ from Section 75 of the Government of India, when it was being adopted as Article 200 of the Constitution, clearly indicates that any discretion which was available to the Governor under the Act in respect of reservation of bills became unavailable with the commencement of the Constitution. It is also manifest that the decision in BK Pavitra is not in consonance with the observations made by the larger bench decision of this court in Shamsher Singh. The majority opinion in Shamsher Singh, more particularly in para 28 observed that ‘Governor is the constitutional or formal head of the State, and he exercises all his powers and functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of his council of ministers, save in spheres where the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his functions in this discretion’.”
So, the Court held that the BK Pavitra judgment is per incuriam, meaning it was passed without considering the correct law and must not be followed.
Governor’s decisions can be reviewed by courts
Finally, the Court said that judicial review is a key part of our Constitution, and even the Governor’s actions under Article 200 can be reviewed by courts.
“So withholding of assent or reservation of bills for the consideration of the President in exercise of his discretion, being subject to the limits defined by the Constitution, would be justiciable on judicially determinable grounds,” the Court added.
This means that if the Governor misuses his power or delays action, courts can check and stop it.
Key Highlights from Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling in Tamil Nadu Governor Case
In this powerful judgment, the Supreme Court laid down several critical legal principles that will have a long-lasting impact on Centre-State relations and the role of Governors in India:
- The Governor’s action of reserving 10 bills for the President’s consideration, even after they were passed again by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, has been declared illegal.
- The Court ruled that any actions taken by the President based on those 10 reserved bills are legally invalid or non est—meaning they hold no legal existence.
- By invoking its special authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed that all 10 bills will be treated as law from the date they were re-submitted to the Governor for assent.
- It clearly stated that once a bill is passed again after reconsideration by the State Assembly, the Governor must give assent unless the bill is substantially different.
- If the Governor wishes to withhold assent and send the bill to the President, this must be done within one month and with the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- If the Governor withholds assent without acting on ministerial advice, then the bill must be returned within three months.
- If a bill is sent again after being reconsidered by the Assembly, the Governor is mandatorily required to give assent within one month.
- Except for specific cases under the second proviso to Article 200 and matters like Articles 31, 32, etc., the Governor is constitutionally bound to act based on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Most importantly, the Court affirmed that the Governor’s conduct under Article 200 is not above judicial scrutiny. His inaction or arbitrary decisions can be challenged and reviewed by the courts.
This judgment strongly reinforces that Governors cannot act independently or delay bills without reason, protecting democratic values and legislative efficiency across Indian States.
CASE TITLE:
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU vs THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU AND ANR.
W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
