The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a Governor does not have a veto power to sit over bills sent to him by a state legislature..A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan declared as illegal Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's decisions regarding the 10 bills presented to him by the State legislature.In what is perhaps an unprecedented move, the Court said that the 10 bills shall be deemed to have been cleared from the date they were presented again to the Governor after reconsideration by the legislature.It ruled that the Governor must assent to a bill when it is presented to him after reconsideration by the State assembly. He can only refuse assent when the bill is different, it clarified."Action of Governor to reserve the 10 bills for President is illegal and arbitrary and thus the action is set aside. All actions taken by Governor thereto for the 10 bills is set aside. The 10 bills shall be deemed to be clear from the date it was re-presented to the Governor.".The Court passed the ruling on a plea by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor Ravi's refusal to grant assent to several bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly. On the Governor's inaction and delay in passing the bills, the bench said,"There is no expressly specified time limit for the discharge of the functions by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution. Despite there being no prescribed time limits, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action upon this, which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay, and essentially roadblock law making machinery in the State...Whenever a bill is presented to the Governor, he is under a constitutional obligation to adopt one of the three courses of action available.".Significantly, the Court fixed timelines within which a Governor must decide on bills passed by the state legislature. It also made it clear that failure to comply with these timelines would make the inaction of the Governor subject to judicial review by the courts.The timelines are as under:1. In case of withholding assent and reserving it for President with aid and advice of Council of Ministers: maximum one month2. Withholding assent without aid and advice of Council of Ministers: Bill to returned within 3 months3. In case of presentation of bill after reconsideration by state assembly: Bills to receive Governor assent within one month..Strict timelines for Governor to act; BK Pavitra bad law: Key takeaways from Supreme Court ruling on Governor's powers.The State government had moved the Court seeking directions to the Governor/President to decide or give assent to bills passed by the State legislature in a time-bound manner.It was argued that the Governor, by indefinitely withholding assent on these bills, was holding the entire State to ransom. In such a situation, the Court must intervene, the government had contended..Senior counsek Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson represented the State of Tamil Nadu.Attorney General for India R Venkataramani represented the Tamil Nadu Governor..On February 11, the Court had questioned the Governor on how he could send a bill for consideration to the President after it was already reconsidered and passed by the State legislature for a second time.During an earlier hearing also, the Court had taken critical note that Governor appeared to have "devised his own procedure" in withholding assent to several bills passed by Tamil Nadu's legislative assembly, thereby rendering Constitutional provisions moot.Read seven key takeaways from the judgment here.Read Supreme Court's directions to Governors here..[Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a Governor does not have a veto power to sit over bills sent to him by a state legislature..A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan declared as illegal Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's decisions regarding the 10 bills presented to him by the State legislature.In what is perhaps an unprecedented move, the Court said that the 10 bills shall be deemed to have been cleared from the date they were presented again to the Governor after reconsideration by the legislature.It ruled that the Governor must assent to a bill when it is presented to him after reconsideration by the State assembly. He can only refuse assent when the bill is different, it clarified."Action of Governor to reserve the 10 bills for President is illegal and arbitrary and thus the action is set aside. All actions taken by Governor thereto for the 10 bills is set aside. The 10 bills shall be deemed to be clear from the date it was re-presented to the Governor.".The Court passed the ruling on a plea by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor Ravi's refusal to grant assent to several bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly. On the Governor's inaction and delay in passing the bills, the bench said,"There is no expressly specified time limit for the discharge of the functions by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution. Despite there being no prescribed time limits, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action upon this, which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay, and essentially roadblock law making machinery in the State...Whenever a bill is presented to the Governor, he is under a constitutional obligation to adopt one of the three courses of action available.".Significantly, the Court fixed timelines within which a Governor must decide on bills passed by the state legislature. It also made it clear that failure to comply with these timelines would make the inaction of the Governor subject to judicial review by the courts.The timelines are as under:1. In case of withholding assent and reserving it for President with aid and advice of Council of Ministers: maximum one month2. Withholding assent without aid and advice of Council of Ministers: Bill to returned within 3 months3. In case of presentation of bill after reconsideration by state assembly: Bills to receive Governor assent within one month..Strict timelines for Governor to act; BK Pavitra bad law: Key takeaways from Supreme Court ruling on Governor's powers.The State government had moved the Court seeking directions to the Governor/President to decide or give assent to bills passed by the State legislature in a time-bound manner.It was argued that the Governor, by indefinitely withholding assent on these bills, was holding the entire State to ransom. In such a situation, the Court must intervene, the government had contended..Senior counsek Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson represented the State of Tamil Nadu.Attorney General for India R Venkataramani represented the Tamil Nadu Governor..On February 11, the Court had questioned the Governor on how he could send a bill for consideration to the President after it was already reconsidered and passed by the State legislature for a second time.During an earlier hearing also, the Court had taken critical note that Governor appeared to have "devised his own procedure" in withholding assent to several bills passed by Tamil Nadu's legislative assembly, thereby rendering Constitutional provisions moot.Read seven key takeaways from the judgment here.Read Supreme Court's directions to Governors here..[Read Judgment]
