Even as heat in the political circles is registering a steady rise with reports of how BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s comments have stoked a controversy… forcing his party to distance itself… let’s attempt to read between the lines of the order…
The case arose from a long standoff between the DMK-led Stalin government in Tamil Nadu and Governor RN Ravi.
Altogether, the Assembly had passed 13 Bills, out of which the Governor had withheld assent on 10 Bills or sent them back to the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly then endorsed the same (Bills) without any actual changes, but the governor (yet) again referred them for the President’s consent… which prompted the court action.
The Supreme Court has redefined the constitutional boundaries of the Governor’s role, reaffirming the principles of federalism and democratic accountability. The ruling delivered by Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, addresses several critical constitutional questions regarding the Governor’s powers and responsibilities under Article 200 of the Constitution.
*The Stalin government in Tamil Nadu argued that such delays violated Article 200, which outlines specific actions a Governor can take upon receiving a Bill: granting assent, withholding assent and returning it for reconsideration, or reserving it for Presidential assent.
It may be recalled that the court had rejected any interpretation suggesting an implied “pocket veto,” where a Governor could indefinitely delay action without explanation or process.
The Apex Court referred to its earlier ruling in State of Punjab versus Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023) which held that Governors cannot use indefinite delays as a tool to veto legislation. By reiterating this principle, the Apex Court clarified that gubernatorial powers are not autonomous but are bound by constitutional morality.
While Article 361 grants personal immunity to Governors, their actions are not beyond judicial review and the court here cited Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India (2006) to affirm that any obstruction of legislative processes by a Governor is subject to judicial oversight. In this case, the court found that Governor Ravi acted unconstitutionally by referring Bills to the President without following due process or consulting the Council of Ministers. Such actions were deemed violative of constitutional norms and detrimental to state governance.
WHAT THE COURT DID
The Court established clear deadlines…
*One month for withholding assent or reserving a Bill for Presidential consideration.
*Three months for returning a Bill without ministerial advice.
*One month for granting assent to a re-passed Bill.
It may be noted that the Supreme Court also invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to ensure “complete justice.” It declared that all 10 Bills withheld by the Governor would be deemed to have received assent on the date they were re-presented after being passed again by the Assembly. However, in this regard, the Court justified it as necessary to resolve a constitutional deadlock and uphold democratic principles especially in case this unprecedented step may have raised concerns about judicial overreach.
The judgment underscores that Governors, despite being Union appointees, are not autonomous actors but constitutional functionaries bound by ministerial advice. Their role is not to obstruct governance but to act as facilitators within India’s federal framework.
Oppn-ruled states
Kerala had earlier moved the court against President Draupadi Murumu’s act of withholding assent referred by the governor. Some important Bills include University Laws (Amendment) Bill 2021 and Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill 2021.
West Bengal had also complained about the governor sitting on eight Bills, including crucial ones such as the West Bengal University of Health Sciences (Amendment) Bill; Aliah University (Amendment) Bill; West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) (Amendment) Bill, and the state government had called it subverting democratic good governance.
In Maharashtra, the top court alluded to the governor who called for an “controversial” confidence vote in the Assembly in 2022, leading to the fall of the government in the state.
These actions had led to accusations of governors acting as “proxies” for the Centre.
On April 17, while taking a swipe at the Supreme Court’s judgment, Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar said judges in the country have no accountability and the law of the land does not apply to them.
“I have no doubt the Parliament cannot script a judgment of a court. I have no doubt about it. The Parliament can only legislate and hold institutions, including judiciary and executive, accountable, but judgment writing, adjudication is the sole prerogative of the judiciary as much legislation is that of the Parliament. But are we not finding this situation getting challenged?" Dhankar questioned.
The Vice President reminded the audience of the President's oath—“to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” He emphasised that the President holds a unique and elevated position, unlike others who merely swear to “abide by the Constitution.”
“We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India and on what basis?” he asked. Referring to constitutional provisions, he said the only authority the judiciary has in such matters is “to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3)” and even that must be done by a bench of five or more judges.
The court had said the President is required to take a decision on the bills in three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned state.
The Supreme Court clarified that in cases where a bill has been reserved because it involves questions of Constitutional validity, the executive should not assume the role of the courts in determining the vires of a bill and should, as a matter of practice, refer such question to the Supreme Court under Article 143.
“We are of the considered view that although the option to refer a Bill to this Court under Article 143 may not be mandatory, yet the President, as a measure of prudence, ought to seek an opinion under the said provision in respect of Bills that have been reserved for the consideration of the President on grounds of perceived unconstitutionality," the Supreme Court had said.
Impact on State governance: For Tamil Nadu, this ruling clears legislative roadblocks and will enable implementation of crucial laws. It also sets a precedent for other states facing similar situations.
(Robin Roy is a Senior Journalist and Former Senior Associate Editor, O Heraldo, Goa)