The Supreme Court was interpreting Article 200, which deals with the role of the Governor in giving assent to Bills. File
| Photo Credit: Aman Raj
The Supreme Court has held that reservation of a State Bill by a Governor for the consideration of the President on grounds like his personal dissatisfaction, political expediency or any other “extraneous or irrelevant considerations” is strictly impermissible by the Constitution.
A Governor’s reference of a Bill to the President for these reasons would be liable to be set aside forthwith by the Constitutional courts.
The court was interpreting Article 200, which deals with the role of the Governor in giving assent to Bills.
News Analysis: Supreme Court judgment on Tamil Nadu Governor addresses a Constitutional silence
The judgment, uploaded online close to midnight on April 12, declared Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged inaction over 10 crucial State Bills, withholding of consent on them and the subsequent reservation of the re-passed Bills to President Droupadi Murmu for her consideration on November 28, 2013, “erroneous in law and non-est”.
A Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala explained that the reservation of a Bill for consideration of the President would be solely on the grounds of great peril to democratic principles with clearly assigned reasons, the court said.
“Where the reservation of a Bill by the Governor for the consideration of the President is on the grounds of peril to democracy or democratic principles or on other exceptional grounds then the Governor would be expected to make a specific and clear reference to the President properly indicating the reasons for entertaining such a belief by pinpointing the specific provisions in this regard and the consequent effect that may ensue if such a Bill were to be allowed to become a law,” the judgment noted.
The Governor while making such a reference should also indicate his subjective satisfaction as to why the aforesaid consequences that may ensue cannot be possibly curtailed or contained by taking recourse to the constitutional courts of the country, Justice Pardiwala observed.
State governments can challenge such a reservation on the ground of failure on part of the Governor to furnish the necessary reasons. They can argue that the reasons indicated by the Governor in question were wholly irrelevant, mala-fide, arbitrary, unnecessary or motivated by extraneous considerations. The issue would be “fully justiciable” by Constitutional courts.
The State government can approach the competent court with a writ of mandamus if a Governor sits on a Bill for a period exceeding the time limit of three months. The State can seek expeditious decision on the Bill through the courts provided the Governor is unable to furnish a sufficient explanation for his delay.
“Where the Governor reserves a Bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State government to assail such an action before the Supreme Court,” Justice Pardiwala has held.
Published – April 12, 2025 05:17 pm IST
