Court Criticizes Governor’s Delay
The Supreme Court’s decision comes after several bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly had been held up by the governor for extended periods. One of the bills had been pending for over five years. The court criticized the governor for disregarding constitutional provisions and failing to act promptly on the bills forwarded to him after their passage in the state assembly. The court also expressed its disapproval of the governor’s failure to respect previous Supreme Court verdicts.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the governor must act within a month to either grant assent or return the bill for reconsideration. If the governor chooses to send the bill back for reconsideration or refer it to the President, the process must be completed within three months. Failure to comply with these timelines, the court said, could be legally challenged.
Timeline and Governor’s Powers
Under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, the governor has three options when a bill is presented: grant assent, withhold assent and return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration. However, the court clarified that the governor cannot reserve a bill for the President after it has been reconsidered by the assembly. The only exception is if the second version of the bill differs significantly from the original.
The court further ruled that the governor cannot exercise an “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” by indefinitely delaying the decision on bills. It stated that withholding assent after a bill has been reconsidered by the assembly is contrary to the procedures laid out in Article 200 of the Constitution. Consequently, the court set aside any actions taken by the President on the 10 Tamil Nadu bills, effectively deeming them assented by the governor.
A Landmark Decision
This ruling marks a significant intervention by the Supreme Court in the functioning of state governments and the role of governors in the legislative process. It underscores the importance of timely action on bills and aims to prevent the undue delay that could stall the legislative process.
In Tamil Nadu’s case, the court’s intervention has resolved the deadlock, ensuring that these bills are now effectively law, despite the governor’s earlier delay. The ruling also serves as a clear directive to all state governors, mandating a time-bound approach to dealing with bills and preventing future delays.
(This story is published from a syndicated feed)
