Supreme Court Today (April 8) rules Tamil Nadu Governor’s move to send 10 bills to the President as unconstitutional. The court said Governors must act within 3 months and follow the State Government’s advice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a very important decision today, the Supreme Court of India said that the Tamil Nadu Governor’s action of sending 10 bills to the President for approval was wrong and illegal.
The Court said that this step by the Governor must be cancelled.
The judgment was given by a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan. They were hearing a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against the actions of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi. The state government had gone to the Supreme Court because the Governor was not giving his approval to many bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
The Court said clearly that a Governor cannot keep the bills with him for a long time or take no action at all. Justice Pardiwala made an important statement:
“Neither the concept of ‘absolute veto’ or ‘pocket veto’ finds a place in the Constitutional scheme. Whenever the Bill is presented to the Governor, he is under obligation to adopt one of the course of action provided in Art 200.”
This means that the Governor cannot reject a bill completely on his own or keep the bill without taking any decision (which is called pocket veto). Article 200 of the Constitution tells the Governor what actions he can take when a bill is given to him.
The Supreme Court also said that if the Governor wants to hold back a bill or send it to the President, it must be done only after taking the advice of the State Government. Otherwise, it is not allowed.
Justice Pardiwala also said:
“In case of withholding of bills or reservation for President contrary to the advice of State, Governor shall take decision within a period of maximum three months.”
This means that the Governor cannot take unlimited time to decide about a bill. He must take a decision within 3 months.
Finally, Justice Pardiwala added:
“As a general rule, the Governor is required to act as per the aid and advise of the State Government.”
This means that in most cases, the Governor must follow the advice given by the elected government of the state.
This judgment is very important because it makes it clear that Governors must follow the Constitution and cannot delay or block laws made by the elected Assembly without proper reasons. This decision is expected to impact how Governors in other states also handle bills passed by state governments.
CASE TITLE:
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU vs THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU AND ANR.
W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023
PREVIOUSLY IN APEX COURT
Chennai: The Tamil Nadu government, led by M.K. Stalin, informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that Governor R.N. Ravi’s refusal to assent to several key bills passed by the state assembly resulted in a “constitutional deadlock.”
The government accused the governor of acting with malice since he took office, leading to a complete stay.
During the hearing before Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, and P. Wilson argued that the governor’s actions are contrary to constitutional provisions.
Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Remove Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi
They warned that if this continues, the democratic system in the state could collapse, as the elected government is being impeded from functioning effectively. They noted that ten bills had been sent to the governor after being reconsidered by the assembly, yet he has not granted approval.
Singhvi emphasized that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a governor can either grant assent, refer the bill to the President, or send it back for reconsideration. He pointed out that once a bill is sent back after reconsideration, the governor has no choice but to approve it. He described the governor’s actions as a mockery of Article 200 and urged the court to intervene to resolve the issue.
Rohatgi added that similar problems have arisen in other states governed by opposition parties, such as Punjab and West Bengal, which have also sought judicial intervention. Wilson highlighted that the governor has acted with malice from the beginning and mentioned that he had even requested the government to dismiss a minister.
In response, Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the governor, stated that all bills requiring the governor’s assent have already been addressed, with no pending bills awaiting approval.
Also Read: Tamil Nadu Gov. Moves Supreme Court to Lift Stay on Janmam Land Development
The state government contended that an elected government has the right to make mistakes, and it is ultimately up to the electorate to decide on any actions against it. They asserted that governors are constitutionally obligated to act in accordance with the advice of the council of ministers.
As the Supreme Court deliberates on this crucial issue, the outcome will have far-reaching implications on centre-state relations. The ruling will likely clarify governors’ constitutional limits and ensure that state governments can function without undue political obstruction.
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
