Story so far: On April 8, the Supreme Court announced that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi has long refused to refuse to agree to 10 bills, which is illegal and legally wrong. In the landmark judgment, Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan emphasized the importance of cooperative federalism, and therefore the increasing focus on the increasing politicization of the governor’s office in opposition-ruled states.
What is the process of granting consent?
Read also | MHA may file a review petition against the governor’s SC judgment, the president’s role in agreeing to state law
Article 200 of the Constitution lists the powers a governor grants to the governor when a bill passed by the state legislature. The only exception is the money bill, which is considered to be automatically granted. In all other cases, once two bills of the Legislature passed a bill, the governor could exercise one of four options: grant consent, refuse consent, return the bill to the General Assembly for reconsideration, or for the President’s consideration. But only those bills that undermine the High Court’s scope of the mandatory role of the constitution can remain as president.
Editorial | Legal Milestones: Supreme Court and Tamil Nadu Governor
Article 200, 1st provisions that if the governor decides to retain consent, the bill must be returned to Parliament “as soon as possible”, accompanied by a request to reconsider the proposed legislation or propose amendments. However, if the General Assembly passes the bill after such reconsideration or does not pass the bill without an amendment, the Governor must consent constitutionally.
Can the governor exercise a “pocket veto”?
The ongoing deadlock between the governor and the opposition-ruled state governments is primarily determined by the interpretation of the condition. Although it calls for quick action, it stops prescriptions and sets schedules. This constitutional silence is often exploited by the governor to delay action on the bill indefinitely without formally returning it – a strategy commonly known as “pocket veto.”
However, the judge pointed out that the use of the word “should” in the substance of Article 200, when used with the phrase “as soon as possible”, excludes any possibility of such pocket veto. Justice Padevara, who wrote the judgment, clarified that the governor’s choice of “refusing to agree” cannot equate with the unlimited power of the state legislature to promptly reject or veto legislation. He warned that such an explanation would undermine the basis for representing democracy.
Considerations about the president?
The court further restricted the governor’s discretion powers, ruling that once the bill is returned as the president’s deliberation, once it is returned to the state legislature, reconsideration and re-submit consent. The only exception is that the bill was substantially different from the original version in its second iteration. The judgment also clarified that such reservations cannot be based on “personal dissatisfaction” or “political expediency” and are only allowed if it poses a serious threat to democratic principles.
Read Also | News Analysis: Supreme Court’s verdict on the governor of Tamil Nadu resolves constitutional silence
It is worth noting that the judge has set a three-month deadline for the president’s decision to agree to the bill mentioned by the governor. From the day the reference is received, the clock will begin to tick. “Any subsequent delay must be accompanied by reasonable grounds and correspondence with the relevant states,” the ruling said. A recommendation was also made to the President to seek the Supreme Court’s recommendations for such bills under the procedures outlined in Article 143 of the Constitution. The judge noted that this action plan is important given the lack of mechanisms at the state level for referring the bill to the Constitutional Court.
What is the prescribed timetable?
The court has implemented a similar timeline on the governor to prevent any obstruction of state legislative proceedings. It clarified that when the governor acts on the Cabinet’s advice, choosing to refuse or keep a bill for the President’s consideration, such action must be taken immediately, no later than a month. If the governor refuses consent contrary to the ministerial recommendation, the bill must be returned within three months, accompanied by a message detailing the reasons for the decision. Likewise, if the governor retains the presidential bill recommended to the cabinet, it must be completed within three months. Finally, if the bill is reconsidered by the state legislature after reconsideration, the Governor must agree within one month. However, the ruling states that if there is a “reasonable reason”, these schedules may be condoned.
Is judicial review allowed?
The judge stressed that any exercise of the governor’s discretion must be appropriate for judicial review to prevent any “ignorance” of the will of the people, as expressed by his elected representative. The court cited its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and believed that the 10 pending bills had been agreed. Judge Padivara believes that in view of the governor’s “respect” for the previous ruling, it is necessary to exercise such extraordinary power. He specifically criticized the governor’s decision to return the bill without providing a reason, which clearly violated the court’s binding directive Chief Secretary of the Governor of Punjab and Punjab (2024).
What is the potential impact?
Lok Sabha former secretary-general PDT Acary told Hindu The ruling adheres to the principle of federalism and has taken clear constitutional remedies for opposition-ruled state governments to oppose excessive delays in the bill granted by the governor to the legislature. “For some time, the Supreme Court has ruled in the governor’s discretionary power. But what makes this judgment unique is its expression of the defined timeline of the governor and the president, ensuring that the enactment of key legislation has not stalled indefinitely.”
Senior defense attorney Shadan Farsat pointed out that the Supreme Court rarely invoked its inherent powers to create legal novels that are considered consent. “By automatically agreeing in the event that the governor fails to comply with the prescribed timeline, the court has established vital safeguards to prevent abuse of the office,” he said, adding that the ruling could pave the way for similar judicial interventions in the event that the coalition government delays its actions on university advice. He told Hindu.
publishing – April 13, 2025 01:34 AM IST
