New Delhi: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that Tamil Nadu Governor Dr. R.N. Ravi’s decision to withhold assent from ten re-enacted bills and reserve them for the President was “illegal, erroneous in law, and liable to be set aside.”
A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that the Governor failed to act in good faith, especially since the bills had been pending with him — the oldest since January 2020 — and were reserved for Presidential consideration only after the Assembly re-enacted them following the Court’s verdict in the Punjab Governor's case.
The verdict had clarified that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on legislation passed by the State Assemblies.
The Court declared that the ten bills are deemed assented by Governor after their second passage by the State Assembly.
Any action taken by the President on these bills was also declared non-est in law (was set aside).
The Bench observed that the Governor's conduct showed scant respect to constitutional procedures and past judgments, necessitating the Court's intervention under Article 142.
Justice Pardiwala, who authored the verdict, clarified that there is no concept of an "absolute" or "pocket veto" in the Indian Constitution.
While Interpreting the Constitution, the Court examined the scope of Article 200, which allows a Governor three options upon receiving a Bill: Grant assent, Withhold assent (and return it to the Assembly) or reserve it for the President — but only at the first instance.
Re-reserving re-enacted bills for Presidential consideration was found to be unconstitutional, unless the second version significantly differed from the original.
Further, the first proviso to Article 200 (withholding assent) must be exercised alongside the substantive clause — meaning, if the Governor withholds assent, the Bill must be sent back to the Assembly for reconsideration.
The Court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that the Governor’s declaration alone was sufficient.
To prevent similar delays in the future, the Supreme Court laid down specific timelines for Governor’s decisions.
One month to decide when acting on advice of the Council of Ministers.
Three months if acting against State Government’s advice.
One month for decisions on re-passed Bills after Assembly reconsideration.
Governor must follow State Cabinet’s advice.
The Court emphasized that the Governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the elected government — barring exceptions like Bills affecting the judiciary (as per the second proviso to Article 200).
The judgment took a strong stand on the constitutional morality expected from Governors, saying that “The Governor must not act as a political agent or roadblock to the democratic will of the people… He must act as a friend, philosopher and guide — not as an inhibitor… He must faithfully follow his constitutional oath.”
Quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Justice Pardiwala concluded:
“However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.”
The case pertains to that on February 10, the same Bench had reserved judgment on writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against the Governor’s refusal to assent to ten bills, some pending for over three years.
After re-passing the Bills in a special session, the State accused the Governor of "constitutional impropriety" by sending them to the President — an action said to violate Article 200.
