The Supreme Court Today (April 8) ruled that Governors cannot delay or block bills passed by State Assemblies. It declared Tamil Nadu Governor’s actions on 10 bills illegal and set strict time limits for assent.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a very important judgment, the Supreme Court of India today clearly said that a Governor does not have the power to stop or delay bills passed by a State Legislative Assembly.
The Court said that once a bill is sent to the Governor again after being reconsidered by the State legislature, he must give his assent.
This ruling came in response to a legal case filed by the Tamil Nadu government.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s actions regarding 10 bills were not legal.
The Governor had not approved the bills and instead sent them for the President’s consideration without proper reason.
The Court made it clear that these 10 bills should be treated as passed from the date they were sent back to the Governor after the State Assembly reconsidered them.
“Action of Governor to reserve the 10 bills for President is illegal and arbitrary and thus the action is set aside. All actions taken by Governor thereto for the 10 bills is set aside. The 10 bills shall be deemed to be clear from the date it was re-presented to the Governor.”
The Tamil Nadu government had gone to the Supreme Court because the Governor was not giving his assent to several important bills passed by the Assembly. The government said this delay was stopping the whole law-making process in the State and affecting governance.
The Supreme Court also criticized the Governor for not taking timely action on the bills and trying to create unnecessary delays. The bench explained that even though Article 200 of the Constitution does not mention a specific time limit for the Governor to act, this cannot be used as an excuse to delay or block bills.
“There is no expressly specified time limit for the discharge of the functions by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution. Despite there being no prescribed time limits, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action upon this, which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay, and essentially roadblock law making machinery in the State…Whenever a bill is presented to the Governor, he is under a constitutional obligation to adopt one of the three courses of action available.”
To make sure such delays do not happen again, the Court has now set clear timelines that the Governor must follow:
- If the Governor wants to withhold assent and send the bill to the President with the advice of the Council of Ministers: this must be done within one month.
- If the Governor wants to withhold assent without the advice of the Council of Ministers: the bill must be returned within three months.
- If the bill is sent again after being reconsidered by the Assembly: the Governor must give assent within one month.
The Tamil Nadu government argued in Court that the Governor was not approving bills for a very long time, which was causing serious problems for the functioning of the State. The government lawyers said that the Governor was misusing his position by simply not taking any action. They asked the Court to fix a time-bound method so that the Governor or President cannot delay State laws without reason.
Senior lawyers Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P Wilson appeared for the Tamil Nadu government, while Attorney General R Venkataramani represented the Governor.
Earlier, on February 11, the Supreme Court had also questioned the Governor’s decision to send a bill to the President even after the Tamil Nadu Assembly had passed it again after reconsideration.
The Court had even remarked that the Governor seemed to be “making up his own procedure” while not approving bills, which is not allowed under the Constitution.
This judgment is a big win for democratic principles and strengthens the federal structure of India. It ensures that a Governor, who is an appointed representative, cannot block the will of an elected State Assembly.
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
