SC declares TN Governor's decision to reserve 10 bills for President's assent as illegal, erroneous

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared that the action of Tamil Nadu Governor to reserve the 10 bills for President in 2023 after those were represented by the state government, as illegal, arbitrary and erroneous.

The judgment comes as a big win for DMK government in Tamil Nadu in view of its frequent face offs with Governor R N Ravi.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan set aside all the actions taken by Governor Ravi with regard to those bills and used its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to hold the 10 bills would be deemed to be clear from the date it was re presented to the Governor. 

"We are in no way undermining the office of the Governor. All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people. He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and kind with dispassion guided not by considerations of political experience but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes,” the bench said.

The court said that in times of conflict, the Governor must be the "harbinger of consensus and resolve issues, lubricating the functioning of the state machinery by his sagacity, wisdom and not run it into a standstill".

The bench said the Governor must be the "catalyst and not an inhibitor and all his actions must be held keeping in mind the dignity of the high constitutional office that he occupies".

The court emphasised 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 edge.

Reading out excerpts of the judgment, Justice Pardiwala said the Governor can't exercise pocket veto or absolute veto under the Constitution.

"Neither the concept of pocket veto nor absolute veto finds a place in the Constitution. As soon as possible means a sense of expediency, which does not allow the Governor to sit over the bills," the court said.

The court said, once the Governor withholds assent he is obligated to follow the procedure as under first proviso of Article 200.

"The Governor cannot sit on bills and excercise pocket veto over them. There is a sense of expediency. There is no scope for the Governor to declare simpliciter withhold of assent. Thus no pocket veto is there under Article 200," the court said.

The court set a timelines on bills. It said that the timeline was maximum one month, when in case of withholding assent and reserving it for President with aid and advice of council of ministers. 

If there was withholding assent without aid and advice of council of ministers, bill has to be returned within three months. Finally, it clarified that in case of presentation of bill after re consideration by state assembly, the bills have to be assented by the Governor within one month, the bench said.

The court said the failure to adhere to this time would invite judicial scrutiny.

"If the Governor has to reserve a bill for the President's assent, then it must be done at the first instance itself. If a Governor decides to withhold assent for the bill, then he must mandatorily send it back to the State Assembly. When the Assembly re-enacts the bill after it was send back by the Governor, then the Governor has no option to reserve it to the President," the bench said.

The court also held that as a general rule, the Governor has to act as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising powers under Article 200. The Governor does not possess any discretion and has to mandatorily act on aid and advice once the bills have been re-enacted.

The court said the bills having been pending with the Governor for a long period of time and the Governor having acted not bonafide in reserving the bills for consideration of the President immediately after pronouncement of decision of this court in Punjab Governor’s case, are deemed to have assented to by the Governor on the day presented to him after re-consideration by the legislative assembly, the bench said.

On February 10, after hearing the arguments for the entire day, the apex court had reserved the judgment on Tamil Nadu government's pleas over the delay in the Governor’s assent to bills, including the constitution of search-and-selection committees for the appointment of Vice Chancellors in state universities.